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 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,445,638, in view of Bang, US 2022/0311996 A1. Although the claims are identical, they are not patentably distinct from one another because the instant claims recite the same limitations as those of the ‘638 patent, with the further limitation that the image information contained in the bitstream includes prediction mode and residual information. These features are made obvious by the prior art, Bang, which discloses in [0224], that
the coding parameters may include… an intra prediction mode/direction, an intra luma prediction mode/direction, an intra chroma prediction mode/direction, an intra partitioning information, an inter partitioning information,… an inter prediction mode, motion information, a motion vector, a motion vector difference, a reference picture index, an inter prediction direction, an inter prediction indicator,… information indicating a presence or absence of a residual signal,… a residual luma sample, [and] a residual chroma sample”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate both prediction mode and residual information as part of the image information in a video bitstream, as disclosed in Bang, as an element of the invention claimed in claim 1 of the ‘638 patent, as such information would facilitate accurate decoding. See Bang [0056]. Further, incorporating these elements would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in claim 1 of the ‘638 patent and in Bang, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
19/328,780, Claim 1
US 12,445,638, Claim 1
An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
obtaining image information through a bitstream, wherein the image information includes
picture order count (POC) information, and a non-reference picture flag related to whether a
picture is not used as a reference picture;
obtaining image information through a bitstream, wherein the image information includes
picture order count (POC) information, and a non-reference picture flag related to whether a
picture is not used as a reference picture;
deriving a POC value of a current picture based on the POC information;
deriving a POC value of a current picture based on the POC information;
deriving a POC value of at least one reference picture based on the POC value of the current
picture;
deriving a POC value of at least one reference picture based on the POC value of the current
picture;
deriving a reference picture list for the current picture based on the POC value of the at
least one reference picture;
performing an inter prediction on the current picture based on the reference picture list; and
generating a reconstructed picture for the current picture based on the result of the inter
prediction,
wherein the image information further includes prediction mode information and residual
information,
wherein the POC information includes POC information of a previous picture in decoding
order for the current picture, and the POC value of the current picture is derived based on a POC
value of the previous picture in decoding order,
wherein the previous picture in decoding order for deriving the POC value of the current
picture is limited to a picture in which a value of the non-reference picture flag is 0, and
wherein a POC difference value between the current picture and the previous picture in
decoding order for deriving the POC value of the current picture is less than half of
MaxPicOrderCntLsb, which is a predetermined maximum value of POC LSB.
deriving a reference picture list for the current picture based on the POC value of the at
least one reference picture;
performing an inter prediction on the current picture based on the reference picture list; and
generating a reconstructed picture for the current picture based on the result of the inter
prediction,
wherein the POC information includes POC information of a previous picture in decoding
order for the current picture, and the POC value of the current picture is derived based on a POC
value of the previous picture in decoding order,
wherein the previous picture in decoding order for deriving the POC value of the current
picture is limited to a picture in which a value of the non-reference picture flag is 0, and
wherein a POC difference value between the current picture and the previous picture in
decoding order for deriving the POC value of the current picture is less than half of
MaxPicOrderCntLsb, which is a predetermined maximum value of POC LSB.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 are allowable over the prior art. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance. The prior art does not disclose, suggest, or make obvious:
wherein the previous picture in decoding order for deriving the POC value of the current picture is limited to a picture in which a value of the non-reference picture flag is 0, and
wherein a POC difference value between the current picture and the previous picture in decoding order for deriving the POC value of the current picture is less than half of MaxPicOrderCntLsb, which is a predetermined maximum value of POC LSB.
as recited in claim 1.
The closest prior art, Ikai, US 2015/0326866 A1, discloses in [0192]-[0194] with respect to figure 36, “when pic_order_cnt_lsb is less than prevPicOrderCntLsb and a difference between prevPicOrderCntLsb and pic_order_cnt_lsb is equal to or greater than half ofMaxPicOrderCntLsb, a number obtained by adding MaxPicOrderCntLsb and prevPicOrderCntMsb is set as PicOrderCntMsb. In figure 36, it can be seen that a picture order count (POC) of a current picture, currPic, has a difference of 8 from the previous picture in decoding order for deriving the POC value of the current picture, which is prevTid0pic. It can also be seen here that the MaxPicOrderCntLsb is 16, making the “wherein a POC difference value between the current picture and the previous picture in decoding order for deriving the POC value of the current picture” equal to half of MaxPicOrderCntLsb, in this instance. Although the Examiner asserted in the previous Office Action that the values in [0194] are merely an example, “and for any POC value below 32 for currPic in figure 36, the condition is fulfilled that a POC difference between currPic POC and prevTidOPic POC is less than half of MaxPicOrderCntLsb”, there is no instance of such as scenario disclosed in Ikai, much less a general disclosure of a rule that “the POC value of the current picture is less than half of MaxPicOrderCntLsb, which is a predetermined maximum value of POC LSB”, instead Ikai merely discloses an example where a POC difference value between the current picture and the previous picture in decoding order for deriving the POC value of the current picture is equal to half of MaxPicOrderCntLsb, rather than being less than half, as claimed.
Additionally, the conditions disclosed in Ikai [0192]-[0194] relate to a difference between pic_order_cnt_lsb and prevPicOrderCntLsb, not to the difference between the POC of a current picture and the POC of the previous picture having a temporal ID of 0 (the reference picture of a current picture).
The claimed invention helps reduce the likelihood of error in determining a current picture POC during decoding, by limiting the difference value with a reference frame to be less than half of MaxPicOrderCntLsb, which can improve the error resilience of the video bitstream during network congestion. See Specification [0219].
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights