DETAILED ACTION
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 1-5 and 15-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 16-20 of copending Application No. 19/262,006 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this instant application claims obvious additional coding details such as reconstruction.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (herein after will be referred to as Deng) (US 20250080718).
Regarding claim 1, Deng discloses
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform an encoding method, the encoding method comprising: [See Deng [0006]]
determining to code a current block in a current picture in a geometric partition mode (GPM); [See Deng [0118] If geometric partitioning mode is used for the current CU.]
determining whether to apply a sample based bi-directional optical flow (S-BDOF) motion refinement on at least a first GPM partition of the current block, the first GPM partition having a bi-predictive motion vector; [See Deng [0402, 0474] For example, at least one prediction sample of a GPM prediction block may be refined by a bi-directional optical-flow based motion refinement (e.g., BDOF or BIO) technique in which a pixel-wise motion refinement performed on top of block-wise motion compensation in a case of bi-prediction.]
applying the S-BDOF motion refinement on one or more samples in the first GPM partition when to apply the S-BDOF motion refinement on the first GPM partition is determined; [See Deng [0402, 0474] For example, at least one prediction sample of a GPM prediction block may be refined by a bi-directional optical-flow based motion refinement (e.g., BDOF or BIO) technique in which a pixel-wise motion refinement performed on top of block-wise motion compensation in a case of bi-prediction.]
reconstructing the current block with the one or more samples being reconstructed based on the S-BDOF motion refinement; encoding the current block into coded information in a bitstream based on the one or more samples that are reconstructed based on the S-BDOF motion refinement; and transmitting the bitstream. [See Deng [Fig. 2] video encoder with prediction and transmission means.]
Regarding claim 2, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Deng discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Furthermore, Deng discloses
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine to apply the S-BDOF motion refinement on each GPM partition of the current block that has a bi-predictive motion vector. [See Deng [0198] Both the two parts of a GPM block is coded from bi-prediction. Also, see [0402, 0474], For example, at least one prediction sample of a GPM prediction block may be refined by a bi-directional optical-flow based motion refinement (e.g., BDOF or BIO) technique in which a pixel-wise motion refinement performed on top of block-wise motion compensation in a case of bi-prediction.]
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6, 13-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng (US 20250080718) in view of Deng et al. (herein after will be referred to as Deng ‘445) (US 20240340445).
Regarding claim 6, Deng discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Furthermore, Deng does not explicitly disclose
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: decode a flag from the coded video bitstream, the flag indicating whether to apply the S-BDOF motion refinement to each partition with a bi-predictive motion vector, the flag being signaled in at least one of a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header (PH), and a slice header.
However, Deng ‘445 does disclose
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: decode a flag from the coded video bitstream, the flag indicating whether to apply the S-BDOF motion refinement to each partition with a bi-predictive motion vector, the flag being signaled in at least one of a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header (PH), and a slice header. [See Deng ‘445 [0508] Whether to and/or how to apply the disclosed methods are signaled at sequence level/group of pictures level/picture level/slice level/tile group level, such as in sequence header/picture header/SPS/VPS/DPS/DCI/PPS/APS/slice header/tile group header. Also, see [0471] BDOF with motion refinement is applied to GPM mode…..BDOF is also applied for subblock based motion vector refinement. BDOF process is applied to the video unit is signaled via a syntax element such as a video unit level flag.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by Deng to add the teachings of Deng ‘445, in order to improve upon the coding effiency and coding effectiveness [See Deng ‘445 [0008]].
Regarding claim 13, Deng discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Furthermore, Deng does not explicitly disclose
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: decode a block level syntax element associated with the current block, the block level syntax element indicating at least one of: applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to both GPM partitions of the current block; not applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to any GPM partitions of the current block; applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to the first GPM partition only; and applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to a second GPM partition of the current block only.
However, Deng ‘445 does disclose
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: decode a block level syntax element associated with the current block, the block level syntax element indicating at least one of: applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to both GPM partitions of the current block; not applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to any GPM partitions of the current block; applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to the first GPM partition only; and applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to a second GPM partition of the current block only. [See Deng ‘445 [0471] BDOF with motion refinement is applied to GPM mode…..BDOF is also applied for subblock based motion vector refinement. BDOF process is applied to the video unit is signaled via a syntax element such as a video unit level flag.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, Deng discloses the apparatus of claim 2. Furthermore, Deng does not explicitly disclose
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: decode a block level syntax element associated with the current block, the block level syntax element indicating at least one of: applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to both GPM partitions of the current block; not applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to any GPM partitions of the current block; and applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to a GPM partition of the current block that uses a first GPM merge index, without applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to another GPM partition of the current block.
However, Deng ‘445 does disclose
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: decode a block level syntax element associated with the current block, the block level syntax element indicating at least one of: applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to both GPM partitions of the current block; not applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to any GPM partitions of the current block; and applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to a GPM partition of the current block that uses a first GPM merge index, without applying the S-BDOF motion refinement to another GPM partition of the current block. [See Deng ‘445 [0471] BDOF with motion refinement is applied to GPM mode…..BDOF is also applied for subblock based motion vector refinement. BDOF process is applied to the video unit is signaled via a syntax element such as a video unit level flag.]
Regarding claim 19, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 4-5 and 17-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under double patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights