DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a response to an application filed on 08/12/2025, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/12/2025 and 06/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application and a copy has been placed of record in the file.
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, 11, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 31, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,489. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 11, and 17 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 21, 31, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,489. Therefore, claim 1, 11, and 17 of the instant application are an obvious variation of claims 21, 31, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 11,343,489.
Claims 1, 11, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,413,705. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 11, and 17 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1, 11, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,413,705. Therefore, claim 1, 11, and 17 of the instant application are an obvious variation of claims 1, 11, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,413,705.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tian (US 2012/0314027 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tian discloses: A decoding method comprising:
generating a prediction block for a current block (see paragraph 54-55, encoding or decoding a current macroblock in a current frame using prediction modes to predict a current frame); and
generating a reconstructed block for the current block using the prediction block (see paragraph 73 and 76).
Regarding claim 2, Tian discloses: The decoding method of claim 1, wherein
the prediction block is generated based on warping for a reference image (see Tian, paragraph 106).
Regarding claim 3, Tian discloses: The decoding method of claim 2, wherein
motion information for the current block used to generate the prediction block is generated based on motion information in a list comprising a plurality of motion information (see Tian, paragraph 239).
Regarding claim 4, Tian discloses: The decoding method of claim 1, wherein
the prediction block is generated based on motion information for a current block and a geometric transformation (see Tian, paragraph 184).
Regarding claim 5, Tian discloses: The decoding method of claim 4, wherein
the geometric transformation includes at least one of enlargement, reduction, and rotation (see Tian, paragraph 165).
Regarding claim 6, Tian discloses: The decoding method of claim 4, wherein
the geometric transformation is used in a mode which uses a motion vector predictor (see Tian, paragraph 184).
Regarding claim 7, Tian discloses: The decoding method of claim 4, wherein
the geometric transformation is used in a merge mode (see Tian, paragraph 184 and 239).
Regarding claim 8, Tian discloses: The decoding method of claim 4, further comprising:
acquiring geometric transformation usage information (see Tian, paragraph 184), wherein the geometric transformation usage information indicates whether the geometric transformation is used for a specific unit comprising the current block (see Tian, paragraph 179 and 184).
Regarding claim 9, Tian discloses: The decoding method of claim 8, wherein
the specific unit is a coding unit (see Tian, paragraph 245).
Regarding claim 10, Tian discloses: The decoding method of claim 1, wherein
a list comprising a plurality of candidates for inter prediction for the current block is generated (see Tian, paragraph 244-245),
motion information of one or more neighboring blocks of the current block are added to the list as the plurality of the candidates (see Tian, paragraph 239),
an additional candidate is added to the list in a case for which the number of candidates in the list is less than a predetermined number (see Tian, paragraph 244), and
the additional candidate is generated based on information for a L0 prediction of an existing candidate in the list and information for a L1 prediction of the existing candidate (see Tian, paragraph 239).
Regarding claims 11-16, claims 11-16 are drawn to methods having limitations similar to the method claimed in claims 1-4 and 10 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, method claims 11-16 correspond to method claims 1-4 and 10 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claims 17-20, claims 17-20 are drawn to a computer readable medium having limitations similar to the method claimed in claims 1-4 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, computer readable medium claims 17-20 correspond to method claims 1-4 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM A NASRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7158. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00-8:00 M-T.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 5712727383. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARYAM A NASRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights