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 1-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No.12445599 (18351297). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add some limitations because one of ordinary skill in the art would have realized that adding some limitations in the claims is an obvious expedient since the remaining elements perform the same functions as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A1 as being anticipated by US 20120275522 A1-Kim et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a radius associated with a first block vector predictor (BVP) candidate of a plurality of BVP candidates ([0047]-0069]);
based on a distance between the first BVP candidate and a second BVP candidate of the plurality of BVP candidates being less than or equal to the radius ([0047]-0069]),
comparing a cost of the first BVP candidate to a cost of the second BVP candidate ([0061]);
based on the cost of the second BVP candidate being less than the cost of the first BVP candidate, including the second BVP candidate in a list of BVP candidates ([0062]); and
coding, based on the list of BVP candidates, a current block of content ([0010]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the radius indicates a threshold represented in units of pixels ([0047]-0069]).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the cost of the first BVP candidate ([0061]); and determining the cost of the second BVP candidate ([0061]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, for at least one BVP candidate of the plurality of BVP candidates, a distance between the first BVP candidate and the at least one BVP candidate ([0069]).
Regarding claim 8, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 12.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120275522 A1-Kim et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Kim”), in view of US 20190246113 A1-XU et al (hereinafter referred to as “XU”).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the method of claim 1 (See claim 1),
Kim fails to disclose wherein: the cost of the first BVP candidate is a first template matching cost; and the cost of the second BVP candidate is a second template matching cost.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xu discloses wherein: the cost of the first BVP candidate is a first template matching cost ([0126-0133]); and the cost of the second BVP candidate is a second template matching cost ([0126-0133]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kim to disclose wherein: the cost of the first BVP candidate is a first template matching cost; and the cost of the second BVP candidate is a second template matching cost as taught by XU, to improve the accuracy of block vector prediction ([0115]).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses the method of claim 1 (See claim 1),
Kim fails to disclose wherein the list of BVP candidates is one of: a merge list for merge mode; or an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list for AMVP mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xu discloses wherein the list of BVP candidates is one of: a merge list for merge mode ([0112], merge mode based on merge list); or an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list for AMVP mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kim to disclose wherein the list of BVP candidates is one of: a merge list for merge mode; or an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list for AMVP mode as taught by XU, to improve the accuracy of block vector prediction ([0115]).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 4 and are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 7 and are applicable for claim 14.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120275522 A1-Kim et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Kim”), in view of US 20060083440 A1-Chen2.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses the method of claim 1 (See claim 1),
Kim fails to disclose wherein the distance between the first BVP candidate and the second BVP candidate is the Euclidian distance between an endpoint of the first BVP candidate and an endpoint of the second BVP candidate.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen2 wherein the distance between the first BVP candidate and the second BVP candidate is the Euclidian distance between an endpoint of the first BVP candidate and an endpoint of the second BVP candidate ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Kim to disclose wherein the distance between the first BVP candidate and the second BVP candidate is the Euclidian distance between an endpoint of the first BVP candidate and an endpoint of the second BVP candidate as taught by Chen2, to enhance image resolution ([0063]).
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights