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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-6, 11-12 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,620. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are fully encompassed by the disclosure of claims 1-7 of the ‘620 patent.
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 10 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.
Claim 6, from which claim 10 depends, indicates that a first neighboring block is not divided into units of sub-blocks. Claim 10 indicates that the first block is divided into sub-blocks. Claim 10 requiring the first block be divided into sub-blocks contradicts claim 6 from which it depends which indicates that the first block is not divided into sub-blocks and thus the meaning of the claim is unclear. The examiner will interpret the claim to the best of their understanding for the purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Luo et al (2022/0150506).
In regard to claim 6 Luo discloses an image decoding method (Luo Fig. 2B and pars 62-65) comprising:
identifying a first neighboring block that is not coded in units of sub-blocks, and a second neighboring block that is coded in units of sub-blocks, from among neighboring blocks that are adjacent to a current block (Luo pars 74-82 note identifying neighboring blocks coded in units of sub-blocks, further note par. 86 identifying and using neighboring bocks that are not divided into sub-blocks);
determining a first motion vector and first location information corresponding to the first neighboring block (Luo pars 74-75 and 86 note determining motion vector and center position of each neighboring block, which may include coding units not divided into sub-blocks);
determining a parameter of a model for determining a motion vector based on the first motion vector and the first location information (Luo pars 78-80 note determining parameters for a motion model using the neighboring motion vector and location data, further note pars 83-96 for alternative simplified model computations);
determining a motion vector of a current sub-block included in the current block based on location information of the current sub-block and the determined parameter (Luo pars 78-80 note determining a motion vector for a current block using the motion model and determined parameters); and
predicting the current block using the motion vector of the current sub-block (Luo pars 62-65 note predicting a current block using inter prediction),
wherein the first location information indicates coordinates that are determined based on the first neighboring block (Luo pars 75 and 86 note location information represents the center of the neighboring block);
In regard to claim 7 refer to the statements made in regard to claim 6 above. Luo further discloses determining second motion vectors and pieces of second location information corresponding to a plurality of second neighboring sub-blocks that are included in the second neighboring block (Luo Figs 5A-B and pars 74-75 note determining motion vectors and center locations of neighboring sub-blocks),
wherein the determining the parameter further comprises determining the parameter furth based on the second motion vectors and the second pieces of location information (Luo pars 78-80 note determining parameters for a motion model using the neighboring motion vector and location data, further note pars 83-96 for alternative simplified model computations).
In regard to claim 9 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 6 above. Luo further discloses that the first location information comprises coordinates corresponding to a center of the first neighboring block (Luo pars 75 and 86 note location information represents the center of the neighboring block) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-2, 4, 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (2022/0150506) in view of Yoon et al (20080291997).
In regard to claim 1 Luo discloses a decoding method (Luo Fig. 2B and pars 62-65) comprising:
determining a representative motion vector and representative location information corresponding to a neighboring sub-block Luo Figs. 5A-B and pars 74-82 particularly note par. 75 regression based motion vector field process using motion vectors of neighboring subblocks and their center locations);
determining a parameter of a model for determining a motion vector based on the representative motion vector and the representative location information (Luo pars 78-80 note determining parameters of a motion model using the sub-block motion vectors and center locations, further note pars 83-96 for a simplified method of determining parameters); and
determining a motion vector of a current sub-block included in the current block based on location information of the current sub-block and the parameter ( Luo par. 79 note determining a motion vector for a current 8x8 block based on the sub-block information and the determined model parameters).
Luo discloses performing a regression based motion vector field process. It is noted that Luo does not disclose identifying sub-blocks with the same motion vector. However, Yoon discloses that it was well known, before the effective filing date of the invention, to identify and combine at least two neighboring sub-blocks that have a same motion vector and are adjacent to each other from among a plurality of sub-blocks for processing motion information (Yoon pars 39-40 note merging or combining 4x4 sub-blocks with the same motion vector into larger sub-blocks such as 4x8 or 8x4 subblocks) and determining a representative motion vector and representative location information corresponding coordinates based on to the at least two neighboring sub-blocks (Yoon pars 39-40 note the merged 4x8 or 8x4 subblock uses the common motion vector as representative motion information and the center of the block becomes the center of the new larger block as representative motion information).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of combining the neighboring 4x4 sub-blocks of Luo into larger sub-blocks with shared motion vector and location information as taught by Yoon in order to reduce the amount of neighboring motion information used in RMVF parameter derivation as suggest3ed by Luo (Luo par. 76 expressing a desire to reduce the number of neighboring sub-blocks used in RMVF).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in regard to claim 1 above. Luo and Yoon further disclose that the coordinates correspond to at least one form among a center of the at least two neighboring sub-blocks or a center of a neighboring block comprising the at least two neighboring sub-blocks (Luo par. 75 note the location information is the center of the neighboring sub-block, Yoon pars 39-40 the merged block comprises two or more 4x4 sub-blocks and has a corresponding different center location than either of its constituent sub-blocks).
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. further comprising determining individual motion vectors and pieces of individual location information corresponding to neighboring sub-blocks that have different motion vectors or are not adjacent to each other from the plurality of neighboring sub-blocks (Luo pars 74-80 note determining the motion vector and center location of each neighboring sub-block),
wherein the determining the parameter further comprises determining the parameter using the individual motion vectors and the pieces of individual location information (Luo pars 74-80 note determining motion model parameters using the neighboring motion and location information, further note pars 83-96 for alternative, simplified model parameter calculations)
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 7 above. Luo discloses performing a regression based motion vector field process using neighboring sub-blocks. It is noted that Luo does not disclose identifying two, third neighboring sub-blocks with the same motion vector. However, Yoon discloses that it was well known, before the effective filing date of the invention, to identify and combine at least two neighboring sub-blocks that have a same motion vector and are adjacent to each other from among a plurality of sub-blocks for processing motion information (Yoon pars 39-40 note merging or combining 4x4 sub-blocks with the same motion vector into larger sub-blocks such as 4x8 or 8x4 subblocks) and determining a representative motion vector and representative location information corresponding coordinates based on to the at least two neighboring sub-blocks (Yoon pars 39-40 note the merged 4x8 or 8x4 subblock uses the common motion vector as representative motion information and the center of the block becomes the center of the new larger block as representative motion information).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of combining at least two of the neighboring 4x4 sub-blocks of Luo into a larger sub-block with the same motion vector and shared location information as taught by Yoon, and using the motion vector and location information of the combined block to determine model the model parameters in Luo, in order to reduce the amount of neighboring motion information used in RMVF parameter derivation as suggested by Luo (Luo par. 76 expressing a desire to reduce the number of neighboring sub-blocks used in RMVF).
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 6 above. Luo further discloses that the first location information comprises coordinates corresponding to a center of an area comprising first neighboring sub-blocks that are adjacent to the current block from among a plurality of first neighboring sub-blocks included in the first neighboring block,
wherein the first neighboring sub-blocks are obtained by dividing the first neighboring block into pre-determined sub-block units.
Luo discloses performing a regression based motion vector field process using neighboring sub-blocks. Luo further indicates that neighboring blocks including coding units treated as a single sub-block with common motion information (Luo par. 86). It is noted that Luo does not disclose identifying neighboring sub-blocks with the same motion vector. However, Yoon discloses that it was well known, before the effective filing date of the invention, to identify and combine at least two neighboring sub-blocks that have a same motion vector and are adjacent to each other from among a plurality of sub-blocks for processing motion information (Yoon pars 39-40 note merging or combining 4x4 sub-blocks with the same motion vector into larger sub-blocks such as 4x8 or 8x4 subblocks) and determining a representative motion vector and representative location information corresponding coordinates based on to the at least two neighboring sub-blocks (Yoon pars 39-40 note the merged 4x8 or 8x4 subblock uses the common motion vector as representative motion information and the center of the block becomes the center of the new larger block as representative motion information).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of combining sub-blocks of the first coding unit of Luo (par. 86) which along a current block border, and which all share a common motion vector of the neighboring 4x4 sub-blocks of Luo into a larger sub-block with the same motion vector and shared location information as taught by Yoon, and using the motion vector and location information of the combined block to determine model the model parameters in Luo, in order to reduce the amount of neighboring motion information used in RMVF parameter derivation as suggested by Luo (Luo par. 76 expressing a desire to reduce the number of neighboring sub-blocks used in RMVF).
In regard to claim 11 Luo discloses an image decoding method (Luo Fig. 2B and pars 62-65) comprising:
determining a representative motion vector and representative location information corresponding to neighboring sub-blocks and determining a parameter of a model for determining a motion vector based on the representative location information and motion vector information of the neighboring blocks (Luo Figs. 5A-B and pars 74-82 regression based motion vector field process using motion vectors of neighboring subblocks and their center locations to determine model parameters used for determining a motion vector for a current block);
determining a motion vector of a current sub-block included in the current block based on location information of the current sub-block and the determined parameter (Luo pars 78-80 note determining a motion vector for a current block using the motion model and determined parameters); and
predicting the current block using the motion vector of the current sub-block (Luo pars 62-65 note predicting a current block using inter prediction).
Luo discloses performing a regression based motion vector field process. It is noted that Luo does not disclose comparing motion vectors of neighboring blocks adjacent to each other and determining model parameters based on whether the motion vectors are the same. However,
However, Yoon discloses that it was well known, before the effective filing date of the invention, to identify and combine at least two neighboring sub-blocks that have a same motion vector and are adjacent to each other from among a plurality of sub-blocks for processing motion information (Yoon pars 39-40 note merging or combining 4x4 sub-blocks with the same motion vector into larger sub-blocks such as 4x8 or 8x4 subblocks) and determining a representative motion vector and representative location information corresponding coordinates based on to the at least two neighboring sub-blocks (Yoon pars 39-40 note the merged 4x8 or 8x4 subblock uses the common motion vector as representative motion information and the center of the block becomes the center of the new larger block as representative motion information).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of determining whether neighboring sub-blocks of Luo may be combine as taught by Yoon, and based on whether the blocks can be combine, either combining the neighboring 4x4 sub-blocks of Luo into larger sub-blocks with shared motion vector and location information and using the combine blocks to determine model parameters, or not combining the sub-blocks and determining model parameters using individual sub-blocks as disclosed by Luo in order to reduce the amount of neighboring motion information used in RMVF parameter derivation as suggest3ed by Luo (Luo par. 76 expressing a desire to reduce the number of neighboring sub-blocks used in RMVF).
In regard to claim 12 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 11 above. Luo further discloses that the representative location information indicates coordinates corresponding to a center of the first neighboring block and the second neighboring block (Luo par. 75 note the location information is the center of the neighboring sub-block, Yoon pars 39-40 the merged block comprises two or more 4x4 sub-blocks and has a corresponding different center location than either of its constituent sub-blocks).
In regard to claim 13 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 11 above. Luo further discloses the first location information indicates coordinates corresponding to a center of the first block and wherein the second location information indicates coordinates corresponding to a center of the second neighboring block (Luo par. 75 note center location of neighboring blocks).
In regard to claim 14 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 11 above. Luo further discloses that at least one of the first neighboring block or the second neighboring block is a coding unit or a sub-block unit included in the coding unit (Luo pars 74-75 note adjacent sub-block units, further note par. 86 coding units not divided into sub-blocks may also be used).
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject to the rejections for double patenting above, claims 3, 5 and 15 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 3, 5, and 15, in addition to the requirements of the claims from which they depend each recite obtaining initial model parameters from previously reconstructed blocks and refining the initial parameters using motion vector and location information of the neighboring blocks.
The closest arts are Luo and Yoon, which disclose determining a motion vector for a current block using a regression analysis based on motion vector and location data from neighboring sub-blocks to generate parameters for a motion model. The motion model is then used to generate a motion vector for the current block. Luo further discloses generating estimated parameters for the motion model which may then be refined with differential data obtained from a bitstream (Luo pars 98-101). However neither Luo nor Yoon disclose obtaining initial parameters from a motion model of a previously reconstructed neighboring block, and refining the initial parameters using the location and motion vector data of adjacent sub-blocks as required by claims 3, 5 and 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220210462 A1 Luo; Jiancong et al.
US 20220191502 A1 Chen; Wei et al.
US 20210385483 A1 LIU; Hongbin et al.
US 20190379888 A1 XU; Xiaozhong et al.
US 20170214932 A1 HUANG; Han
US 20130230108 A1 LEANNEC; Fabrice Le et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
