Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-6, 10-11, 13-14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. Patent No. 11,973,974 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are not identical in terms of wording and terminology, the scopes of the claims are the same and they are not patentably distinct from each other as they are obvious variants of each other.
Instant Application No. 19/278,375
U.S. Patent No.11,973,974 B2
1. A video decoding method comprising: refining a first non-refined motion vector and a second non-refined motion vector of a first block to generate a first refined motion vector and a second refined motion vector; generating a prediction for the first block using the first refined motion vector and the second refined motion vector; and determining a boundary filtering strength for the first block based at least in part on the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector; wherein the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector are not used for generating the prediction.
1. A video decoding method comprising: refining a first non-refined motion vector and a second non-refined motion vector to generate a first refined motion vector and a second refined motion vector; predicting the first block with bi-prediction using the first refined motion vector and the second refined motion vector; determining a deblocking boundary filtering strength based at least in part on the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector; and applying a filter to at least one boundary of the first block using the determined deblocking boundary filtering strength.
Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973,974 does not explicitly specify wherein the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector are not used for generating the prediction, the Examiner notes that the predicting as recited in U.S. Patent No. 11973974 is performed using the first refined motion vector and the second refined motion vector, thus it would be obvious that the prediction as claimed in U.S. Patent No. 11973974 does not involve the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector. Thus, it would be obvious wherein the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector are not used for generating the prediction for the benefit of providing increased accuracy of prediction.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973,974 B2.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973974 B2.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973974 B2.
Claims 6, 11 and 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim(s) 6, 9, and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,973974 B2 and rejected based on the same analysis as claim 1.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19-20 corresponds to claims 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 and are rejected based on the same analysis made for claims 2, 4-6.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-16, 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2-5, 7, and 15-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,628 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are not identical in terms of wording and terminology, the scopes of the claims are the same and they are not patentably distinct from each other as they are obvious variants of each other.
Instant Application No. 19/278,375 A1
U.S. Patent No. 11,546,628 B2
1. A video decoding method comprising: refining a first non-refined motion vector and a second non-refined motion vector of a first block to generate a first refined motion vector and a second refined motion vector; generating a prediction for the first block using the first refined motion vector and the second refined motion vector; and determining a boundary filtering strength for the first block based at least in part on the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector; wherein the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector are not used for generating the prediction.
1.A method comprising: at a first block, refining a first non-refined motion vector and a second non-refined motion vector to generate a first refined motion vector and a second non-refined motion vector; using one or both of the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector, predicting motion information of a second block, the second block being a spatial neighbor of the first block; predicting the first block wit bi-prediction using the first refined motion vector and the second refined motion vector; and determining a deblocking filter strength for the first block based at least in part on the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector.
Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,628 B2 does not specify wherein the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector are not used for generating the prediction, the Examiner notes that claimed predicting as recited in U.S. Patent No. 11,546,628 B2 is performed using the first refined motion vector and the second refined motion vector, thus it would be obvious that the prediction as claimed in U.S. Patent No. 11,546,628 B2 does not involve the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector. Thus, it would be obvious wherein the first non-refined motion vector and the second non-refined motion vector are not used for generating the prediction for the benefit of providing increased accuracy of prediction.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,628 B2.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,628 B2.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claims 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,68 B2.
Claim 6, 11, and 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11.546,628 B2 and are rejected based on the same analysis as claim 1.
Claims 8, 9, 10-11, 13-16, and 18-20 corresponds to claims 7, 15, 16-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,628 B2 and are rejected based on the same analysis as claims 2, 3-5, and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The term “substantially” in claims 5, 10, 15 and 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chuang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 20180041769 A1), “Pattern-Based Motion Vector Derivation For Video Decoding”
Chuang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0192071 A1), “Decoder-Side Motion Vector Restoration For Video Coding”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights