DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on August 25, 2025. Claims 1-6 are pending and are examined.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,418,675 (the ‘675 patent). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that claims 1-3 and 5-7 of the ‘675 patent and claims 1-6 of the instant invention cover substantially the same subject matter.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claim 1 of the ‘675 patent:
Instant Application
‘675 Patent
1. (Original) A method of decoding a video, comprising:
1. A method of decoding a video, comprising:
1. Limitation 1: constructing a merge candidate list of a current block in the video, the merge candidate list
including a plurality of merge candidates;
1. Limitation 1: constructing a merge candidate list of a current block in the video, the merge candidate list
including a plurality of merge candidates;
1. Limitation 2: deriving motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list; and
1. Limitation 2: deriving motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 3: generating a final prediction block of the current block by performing inter prediction of
the current block using the motion information;
1. Limitation 3: generating a final prediction block of the current block by performing inter prediction of
the current block using the motion information;
1. Limitation 4: wherein the current block is divided, based on a predetermined division line, into a plurality
of partitions including a first partition and a second partition,
1. Limitation 5: wherein the current block is divided, based on a predetermined division line, into a plurality
of partitions including a first partition and a second partition,
1. Limitation 5: wherein the motion information of the current block includes motion information of the
first partition and motion information of the second partition,
1. Limitation 9: wherein the motion information of the current block is derived for each of the first partition and the second partition,
1. Limitation 6: wherein a pixel of the final prediction block is predicted based on at least one of a first
prediction block or a second prediction block of the current block,
1. Limitation 8: wherein a pixel of the final prediction block is predicted based on at least one of a first
prediction block or a second prediction block of the current block,
1. Limitation 7: wherein the first prediction block is obtained based on the motion information of the first
partition and the second prediction block is obtained based on the motion information of the second
partition,
1. Limitation 10: wherein the first prediction block is obtained based on the motion information of the first
partition and the second prediction block is obtained based on the motion information of the second
partition,
1. Limitation 8: wherein a pixel at a first position in the current block is predicted based on only one of a
pixel at the first position in the first prediction block or a pixel at the first position in the second
prediction block,
1. Limitation 11: wherein a pixel at a first position in the current block is predicted based on only one of a
pixel at the first position in the first prediction block or a pixel at the first position in the second
prediction block,
1. Limitation 9: wherein a pixel at a second position in the current block is predicted based on a weighted
sum of a pixel at the second position in the first prediction block and a pixel at the second position
in the second prediction block,
1. Limitation 12: wherein a pixel at a second position in the current block is predicted based on a weighted
sum of a pixel at the second position in the first prediction block and a pixel at the second position
in the second prediction block,
1. Limitation 10: wherein a weight for the weighted sum includes a first weight for the pixel at the second position in the first prediction block and a second weight for the pixel at the second position in the
second prediction block,
1. Limitation 13: wherein a weight for the weighted sum includes a first weight for the pixel at the second position in the first prediction block and a second weight for the pixel at the second position in the
second prediction block,
1. Limitation 11: wherein based on the pixel at the second position being a pixel located on the division line, both the first weight and the second weight are determined as 4, and
1. Limitation 14: wherein based on the pixel at the second position being a pixel located on the division line, both the first weight and the second weight are determined as 4, and
1. Limitation 12: wherein based on the pixel at the second position being a neighboring pixel diagonally
adjacent to the pixel located on the division line, the first weight is determined as one of 2 or 6 and
the second weight is determined as the other one of 2 or 6.
1. Limitation 15: wherein based on the pixel at the second position being a neighboring pixel diagonally
adjacent to the pixel located on the division line, the first weight is determined as one of 2 or 6 and
the second weight is determined as the other one of 2 or 6.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. Specifically, claim 6 appears to be directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream. However, the claim then recites several steps for encoding/generating a bitstream. The claim does not indicate that there are any coding instructions on the computer-readable medium for accomplishing such an encoding of the bitstream. A computer-readable storage medium itself cannot decode data without instructions for such decoding. Thus, it is unclear as to whether Applicant is attempting to claim a storage medium storing a bitstream or a method of encoding a bitstream. Accordingly, Applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0016789 (“Lou”).
With respect to claim 6, patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05(III). For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id. Claim 6 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream followed by several clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream is encoded/generated. It does not detail instructions executed by a processor, it merely details a bitstream stored on a medium. In other words, the elements/steps for encoding/generating the bitstream are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Thus the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Lou which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (see ¶155).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights