DETAILED ACTION
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.
This application (19/317,919)
Parent Patent (US 12,452,409)
[8] A method of video decoding, the method comprising
[10] A method of video decoding, the method comprising
decoding, from a data stream, a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message associated with a sequence of pictures
decoding a supplemental enhancement information (SEI) message from a data stream,
determining that the SEI message indicates that
the SEI message indicating that
encoding of all RASL pictures within the sequence of pictures
coding of all random access skipped leading (RASL) pictures within a sequence of pictures is
was constrained by excluding at least one coding tool
constrained in a manner excluding a predetermined set of one or more coding tools
a sequence of pictures including at least one random access skipped leading (RASL) picture and a clean random access (CRA) picture associated with the at least one RASL picture
the sequence of pictures comprising at least one random access skipped leading (RASL) picture and a clean random access (CRA) picture associated with the at least one RASL picture.
decoding the at least one RASL picture
video decoding… of all random access skipped leading (RASL) pictures
without using the at least one coding tools
excluding a predetermined set of one or more coding tools
[9] coding tool comprises: a cross-component linear-model based prediction tool.
[10] the predetermined set comprising a cross-component linear-model based prediction tool, and,
[10] cross-component linear-model based prediction tool is for predicting a chroma component of a picture block from a luma component of the picture block using a linear model with parameters based on luma and chroma values of a previously decoded blocks neighbouring the picture block.
[inherent: this is the definition of cross-component linear-model]
[11] the at least one coding tool comprises: a decoder-side motion vector refinement tool
[10] the predetermined set comprising … a decoder-side motion vector refinement tool
[12] the decoder-side motion vector refinement tool modifies a signaled motion vector using at least one motion vector candidate selected from a plurality of motion vector candidates associated with previously decoded blocks neighbouring a picture block, wherein the signaled motion vector is coded in the data stream for inter-predicting a inter-predicted block from a reference picture.
[inherent: this is the definition of decoder-side motion vector refinement]
[13] determining that the SEI message further indicates that coding of the at least one RASL picture is constrained so that no collocated reference picture used for temporal motion vector prediction (TMVP) or subblock temporal motion vector prediction (sbTMVP) of a motion vector of the at least one RASL picture precedes the CRA picture associated with the RASL picture in decoding order.
[11] wherein the SEI message further indicates that coding of the at least one RASL picture is constrained so that no collocated reference picture used for temporal motion vector prediction (TMVP) or subblock temporal motion vector prediction (sbTMVP) of a motion vector of the at least one RASL picture precedes the CRA picture associated with the RASL picture in decoding order.
[14] resampling a reference picture of an inter-predicted block to bridge a (i) sample resolution deviation between the reference picture and a current picture in which the inter- predicted block is contained or (ii) scaling window size deviation; and generating an inter-prediction signal for the inter-predicted block based on the resampled reference picture.
[12] performing reference picture resampling, wherein, according to the reference picture resampling, a reference picture of an inter-predicted block is resampled so as to bridge a scaling window size deviation or sample resolution deviation between the reference picture and a picture in which the inter-predicted block is contained to provide an inter-prediction signal for the inter-predicted block.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-17, 20-22, 25-27, 30-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,452,409. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is no significant change in the language to indicate a change in scope.
Claims 6, 13, 18, 23, 28, 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,452,409. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is no significant change in the language to indicate a change in scope.
Claims 7, 14, 19, 24, 29, 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,452,409. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because there is no significant change in the language to indicate a change in scope.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-20, 22, 24-25, 27, 29-30, 32, 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US PG Publication 2022/0060692) in view of Skupin (US PG Publication 2019/0014363).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang (US PG Publication 2022/0060692) discloses a decoder for video decoding (video decoder apparatus [0022]), the decoder comprising at least one processor (computer software, firmware, or hardware [0732]), the at least one processor configured (non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to implement the method [0612]) to:
decode, from a data stream (a bitstream to be decoded [0110]), a [] information message (e.g., parameter set [0073]-[0080], Table 1, Table 2) associated with a sequence of pictures (sequence parameter set, Table 1) including at least one random access skipped leading picture (RASL picture [0052]) and a clean random access picture (CRA picture [0052]) associated with the at least one RASL picture (CRA pictures with associated RASL pictures [0052]);
determine that … encoding of all RASL pictures (decode RASL pictures with resampled reference pictures [0103]; if the reference picture has a different resolution than the current picture [0487] – [0520]) within the sequence of pictures (Segments starting with a CRA picture contain RASL pictures for which at least one reference picture is in the previous Segment … open GOP) was constrained by excluding at least one coding tool (coding tool X is disabled [0487]);
and decode the at least one RASL picture (decoding process for RASL pictures [0028]) without using the at least one coding tools (coding tool X is disabled [0487]).
Zhang does not disclose, but Skupin (US PG Publication 2019/0014363) teaches
supplemental enhancement information message (supplemental enhancement information [0076]);
the SEI message indicates (information may be conveyed from server to client [0073]; SEI allows providing information [0076]) that encoding of all RASL pictures (RASL [0076]) within the sequence of pictures (video stream [0076]) was constrained (maximum distance [0076]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to use the SEI message of Skupin to convey information in the bitstream of Zhang because supplemental enhancement information is a known video coding metadata structure and does not interfere with the coding of pixel data, and Skupin suggests that using SEI to inform resolution switching in streaming services improves the adaptive streaming experience for the user [0004], improving quality of experience.
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang (US PG Publication 2022/0060692) discloses the decoder of Claim 1, wherein the at least one coding tool comprises:
a decoder-side motion vector refinement tool (DMVR [0506]).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang (US PG Publication 2022/0060692) discloses the decoder of Claim 4, wherein:
the decoder-side motion vector refinement tool modifies a signaled motion vector using at least one motion vector candidate selected from a plurality of motion vector candidates associated with previously decoded blocks neighbouring a picture block, wherein the signaled motion vector is coded in the data stream for inter-predicting a inter-predicted block from a reference picture (DMVR [0506]; DMVR is a term of art and has a standard definition).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang (US PG Publication 2022/0060692) discloses the decoder of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
resample a reference picture (resampling a reference picture [0056]) of an inter-predicted block (reference pictures are re-scaled and inter prediction is applied [0065]) to bridge (warping parameters and resampling algorithm [0056]) a (i) sample resolution deviation between the reference picture and a current picture (having a different source format than the picture being predicted [0056]) in which the inter-predicted block is contained (reference pictures are re-scaled and inter prediction is applied [0065]) or (ii) scaling window size deviation;
and generate an inter-prediction signal for the inter-predicted block (inter predictor, motion compensation, Fig. 12) based on the resampled reference picture (resampled from decoded picture buffer, Fig. 12).
Regarding Claim 8, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in 4.
Regarding Claim 12, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang (US PG Publication 2022/0060692) discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions (computer software, firmware, or hardware [0732]). The remainder of the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 20, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 24, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 25, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 27, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 30, Zhang (US PG Publication 2022/0060692) discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions (computer software, firmware, or hardware [0732]). The remainder of the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 32, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 34, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
JVET-N0279 – Adaptive resolution change
WO 2023052141 A1 – disabling sub block tmvp
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights