CTNF 19/298,312 CTNF 88062 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA 1. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Information Disclosure Statement 2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 3. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-02 AIA 4. Claim s 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1, 7-8, 13-14 and 19-20 teach the limitation "when each component of the decoded motion-vector difference has a respective amplitude value that is less than a threshold, using a first precision for motion-vector quantization, and when at least one of the components of the decoded motion-vector difference has a respective amplitude value that is greater than the threshold, using a second precision for motion-vector quantization" and “wherein the threshold is equal to eight full-pixel units.” The specification as-originally filed teaches on page 19 a relationship between the motion vector accuracy q_mv and the amplitude of motion vector difference mvd, as q_mv = f(|mvd|), where f can be : f(x)=0.25 when x<= T; and 0.5 when x> T , which means that when | mvd | <= T, q_mv = 0.25 and when | mvd | > T, q_mv = 0.5 . Therefore, the specification teaches when the decoded motion-vector difference has an amplitude value that is less than a threshold, using a first precision for motion-vector quantization, and when the decoded motion-vector difference has an amplitude value that is greater than the threshold, using a second precision for motion-vector quantization. Furthermore, the specification does not teach threshold values. The specifics taught in the limitations above are not disclosed by the specification as-originally filed. The specification does not disclose any formulas, calculations, or any algorithms explaining a relationship between the motion vector accuracy and the amplitude value of the components of the decoded motion vector difference as claimed. The amount of guidance or direction in the application, as-originally filed, are not sufficient to enable a person skilled in the art on how to make and use the invention without undue experimentation . 5. Claims 2-6, 9-12, 15-18 and 21-24 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement because of their dependency on the rejected claims 1, 7, 13 and 19 . 07-30-02 AIA 6. 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. 7. Claims 8, 14 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims teach “wherein the threshold is equal to eight full-pixel units”. It is unclear what “eight full-pixel units” means. The term “units” have different meanings and the specification does not clarify its meaning. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-fti 8. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: (a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-fti 9. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-fti 10. Claim s 1-5, 7-11, 13-17 and 19-23 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki (2008/0165856) cited in IDS, in view of Sugimoto et al. (US 2004/0233991) hereinafter “Sugimoto” . As per claim 1, Suzuki discloses a method of decoding a video data stream, the method comprising: parsing a frame header for a current picture (see FIGs. 14, which is a decoder that decode the data syntax of FIG. 1) to determine whether the picture is an interframe (FIG. 1, picture type 11; see paragraph 0078); responsive to determining that the current picture is an interframe, performing steps (a)-(d) as follows: (a) decoding a motion-vector difference and adding the motion-vector difference to a motion vector prediction to obtain a motion vector having horizontal and vertical components (paragraph 0098, see equation (2)); (b) when each component of the decoded motion-vector difference has a respective amplitude value that is less than a threshold, using a first precision for motion-vector quantization, and when at least one of the components of the decoded motion-vector difference has a respective amplitude value that is greater than the threshold, using a second precision for motion-vector quantization (paragraphs 0100-0104 teach different MV accuracies based on the value of (MV-PMV)); (c) generating a motion-compensated prediction for a current block by accessing reference-frame samples at locations indicated by a quantized motion vector, wherein the quantized motion vector is the motion vector quantized to the used precision (FIG. 14, output of motion compensation 504; paragraphs 0016-0017); and (d) reconstructing the current block using the motion-compensated prediction (FIG. 14, output of adder 505; paragraph 0017). However, Suzuki does not explicitly disclose using a first precision or second precision based on comparison of amplitude value of decoded motion-vector difference and a threshold. In the same field of endeavor, Sugimoto discloses using a first precision or second precision based on comparison of amplitude value of decoded motion-vector difference and a threshold (paragraph 0086, in cases where the absolute values of the MVDs in blocks surrounding the processing target block are smaller than a predetermined value, the predicted image is produced using the first prediction reference image produced by the first FP production unit 26. Namely, in cases where the movement of the processing target block from the reference frame is not complex, the predicted image is extracted from the first prediction reference image in which the number of FPs is small. Accordingly, for the processing target block in which the movement from the reference frame is not complex, the encoding efficiency is improved by increasing the resolution. On the other hand, in cases where the absolute values of the MVDs in blocks surrounding the processing target are equal to or greater than the predetermined value, the predicted image is produced using the second prediction reference image produced by the second FP production unit 28, wherein the first FP production unit 26 and the second FP production unit used ½ or ¼ pixel precisions as shown in FIG. 2; paragraph 0091). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Suzuki, with those of Sugimoto, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references are related to motion compensation precision using MVDs, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combination of Suzuki and Sugimoto used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted. As per claim 2, Suzuki discloses wherein the first precision represents a greater precision than the second precision (paragraphs 0100-0104). As per claim 3, Sugimoto discloses wherein the respective amplitude value for each component of the motion vector is the absolute value of that component (paragraphs 0086 and 0091). As per claims 4-5, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 2 are applicable for claims 4-5. As per claim 7, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 7. As per claim 8, Suzuki disclose wherein the threshold is equal to eight full-pixel units (paragraph 0101 teaches a threshold of 8). As per claims 9-11, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 2 are applicable for claims 9-11. As per claims 13 and 19, the claims are directed to a method of encoding and apparatus for encoding corresponding to the method of decoding and apparatus for decoding of claims 1 and 7; therefore, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claims 13 and 19. In addition, Suzuki discloses an encoder and encoding method (see FIG. 13). As per claim 14 and 20, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 8 are applicable for claims 14 and 20. As per claims 15-17, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 2 are applicable for claims 15-17. As per claims 21-23, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 2 are applicable for claims 21-23 . 07-21-fti 11. Claim s 6, 12, 18 and 24 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki (2008/0165856) cited in IDS, in view of Sugimoto et al. (US 2004/0233991) in further view of Watanabe (US 2005/0286638) cited in IDS . As per claim 6, Suzuki and Sugimoto disclose the method of claim 1; however, Suzuki or Sugimoto do not explicitly disclose wherein obtaining a respective amplitude value for each component of the preliminary motion vector includes taking the absolute value of each component. In the same field of endeavor, Watanabe discloses wherein obtaining a respective amplitude value for each component of the preliminary motion vector includes taking the absolute value of each component (paragraph 0029). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Suzuki and Sugimoto, with those of Watanabe, because all references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed all references are related to motion compensation precision using MVDs, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. As per claims 12, 18 and 24, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 6 are applicable for claims 12, 18 and 24 . 07-96 AIA 12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 20100272182, US 20050053143, US 20080144720, US 20080165861, US 20040161157, US 20080084930) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm. 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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. /MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/298,312 Page 2 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/298,312 Page 3 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/298,312 Page 4 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/298,312 Page 5 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/298,312 Page 6 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/298,312 Page 7 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/298,312 Page 8 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/298,312 Page 9 Art Unit: 2482 Application/Control Number: 19/298,312 Page 10 Art Unit: 2482
Prosecution Insights