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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-6 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/754,602, filed on 04/08/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,159,793 in view of Chen et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2012/0082225 A1]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover mutually associated subject matter. Thus, a terminal disclaimer is required. An analysis of the claims can be seen in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Instant Application No. 19/322,652 vs. U.S. Patent No. 11,159,793
Instant Application No. 19/322,652 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
U.S. Patent No. 11,159,793 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
1. A method for decoding an image, the method comprising: deriving motion information of a current block, wherein the current block includes a first partition and a second partition based on geometric partitioning, and the motion information includes first motion information related to the first partition and second motion information related to the second partition; obtaining a first prediction block of the current block based on the first motion information related to the first partition; obtaining a second prediction block of the current block based on the second motion information related to the second partition; and obtaining a final prediction block of the current block based on a weighted sum of the first prediction block and the second prediction block; and reconstructing the current block based on the final prediction block, wherein the geometric partitioning is applied to the current block only when the current block does not perform sub-block-based inter prediction.
1. A method for decoding an image comprising: dividing, based on geometric motion partition, a current block into a first partition and a second partition; obtaining a first prediction block of the current block based on motion information of the first partition; obtaining a second prediction block of the current block based on motion information of the second partition; and obtaining a final prediction block of the current block by performing a weighted sum of the first prediction block and the second prediction block, wherein the geometric motion partition is performed based on division information indicating a direction of a division line dividing the current block, wherein a shape of at least one of the first partition and the second partition is triangular, and wherein the geometric motion partition is applied to the current block only when the current block does not perform sub-block-based inter prediction.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the sub-block-based inter prediction includes sub- block-based temporal candidate prediction.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the sub-block-based inter prediction includes sub-block-based temporal candidate prediction.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the motion information of the current block is derived based on a merge mode.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the motion information of the first partition and the second partition is derived based on a merge mode, respectively.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the first partition has a merge index different from the second partition, and wherein the merge index indicates a merge candidate of the first partition.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the first partition has a merge index different from the second partition, and wherein the merge index indicates a merge candidate of the first partition.
Claim 5 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 8 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 6 is the same as claim 5 but in non-transitory computer-readable medium form.
Claim 9 is the same as claim 8 but in non-transitory computer-readable medium form.
Some of the differences in the claim limitations in the U.S. Patent are narrower than the instant application, and thus it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the U.S. Patent.
The U.S. Patent fails to explicitly disclose deriving motion information of a current block, wherein the current block includes a first partition and a second partition based on geometric partitioning, and the motion information includes first motion information related to the first partition and second motion information related to the second partition; obtaining a second prediction block of the current block based on the second motion information related to the second partition; and reconstructing the current block based on the final prediction block, wherein the motion information of the current block is derived based on a merge mode.
Chen discloses deriving motion information of a current block, wherein the current block includes a first partition and a second partition based on geometric partitioning, and the motion information includes first motion information related to the first partition and second motion information related to the second partition ([0030] encoder generates motion information for each PU of the partitioned CU); obtaining a second prediction block of the current block based on the second motion information related to the second partition ([0030] encoder uses the motion information determined for the PU's to generate a prediction block for the CU); and reconstructing the current block based on the final prediction block ([0077] reconstruction generates reconstructed blocks using the prediction blocks), wherein the motion information of the current block is derived ([0030] encoder generates motion information for each PU of the partitioned CU) based on a merge mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention with the teachings of Chen in order to improve coding efficiency without sacrificing video quality or preventing successful decoding of such video data [See Chen].
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 9, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,439,043 in view of Chen et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2012/0082225 A1]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover mutually associated subject matter. Thus, a terminal disclaimer is required. An analysis of the claims can be seen in Table 2 below.
Table 2: Instant Application No. 19/322,652 vs. U.S. Patent No. 12,439,043
Instant Application No. 19/322,652 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
U.S. Patent No. 12,439,043 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
1. A method for decoding an image, the method comprising: deriving motion information of a current block, wherein the current block includes a first partition and a second partition based on geometric partitioning, and the motion information includes first motion information related to the first partition and second motion information related to the second partition; obtaining a first prediction block of the current block based on the first motion information related to the first partition; obtaining a second prediction block of the current block based on the second motion information related to the second partition; and obtaining a final prediction block of the current block based on a weighted sum of the first prediction block and the second prediction block; and reconstructing the current block based on the final prediction block, wherein the geometric partitioning is applied to the current block only when the current block does not perform sub-block-based inter prediction.
1. A method for decoding an image, the method comprising: dividing, based on tree-based block partition, a higher coding block in the image into a plurality of coding blocks; dividing, based on geometric motion partition, a current block into a first partition and a second partition, the current block being one of the plurality of the coding blocks; obtaining a first prediction block of the current block based on motion information of the first partition; obtaining a second prediction block of the current block based on motion information of the second partition; obtaining a final prediction block of the current block by performing a weighted sum of the first prediction block and the second prediction block; and reconstructing the current block based on the final prediction block, wherein the geometric motion partition is performed based on division information indicating a direction of a division line dividing the current block, wherein a shape of at least one of the first partition and the second partition is triangular, and wherein the geometric motion partition is applied to the current block only when the current block does not perform sub-block-based inter prediction.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the sub-block-based inter prediction includes sub- block-based temporal candidate prediction.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the sub-block-based inter prediction includes sub-block-based temporal candidate prediction.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the motion information of the current block is derived based on a merge mode.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the motion information of the first partition and the second partition is derived based on a merge mode, respectively.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the first partition has a merge index different from the second partition, and wherein the merge index indicates a merge candidate of the first partition.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the first partition has a merge index different from the second partition, and wherein the merge index indicates a merge candidate of the first partition.
Claim 5 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 9 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding form.
Claim 6 is the same as claim 5 but in non-transitory computer-readable medium form.
Claim 10 is the same as claim 8 but in non-transitory computer-readable medium form.
Some of the differences in the claim limitations in the U.S. Patent are narrower than the instant application, and thus it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the U.S. Patent.
The U.S. Patent fails to explicitly disclose deriving motion information of a current block, wherein the current block includes a first partition and a second partition based on geometric partitioning, and the motion information includes first motion information related to the first partition and second motion information related to the second partition; obtaining a second prediction block of the current block based on the second motion information related to the second partition; wherein the motion information of the current block is derived based on a merge mode.
Chen discloses deriving motion information of a current block, wherein the current block includes a first partition and a second partition based on geometric partitioning, and the motion information includes first motion information related to the first partition and second motion information related to the second partition ([0030] encoder generates motion information for each PU of the partitioned CU); obtaining a second prediction block of the current block based on the second motion information related to the second partition ([0030] encoder uses the motion information determined for the PU's to generate a prediction block for the CU); wherein the motion information of the current block is derived ([0030] encoder generates motion information for each PU of the partitioned CU) based on a merge mode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention with the teachings of Chen in order to improve coding efficiency without sacrificing video quality or preventing successful decoding of such video data [See Chen].
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)(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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2012/0082225 A1].
In regards to claim 6, the claim limitations and the recitation of, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with an image signal…” is a non-
functional descriptive material, wherein no functional relationship exists between the recording
medium and the data. "To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the
printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated".
MPEP §2111.05(i)(A). When a claimed "computer-readable medium merely serves as a support
for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The computer-readable medium storing the data associated with the image signal in claim 6 merely services as a support for the storage of the data and provides no functional relationship between the data and the computer-readable medium. Therefore, the structure data is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a non-transitory computer-readable medium for storing data associated with an image signal and is anticipated by Chen which recites a computer-readable medium storing data ([0041] the video data may be stored on a given type of computer-readable media).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights