DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on September 24, 2025. Claims 1-18 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 18 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program and a bitstream stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, enables the processor to perform the encoding method of claim 8 to generate the bitstream.” 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. Examiner interprets the language of claim 18 above to indicate that the computer-program stored on the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is executed by a processor, enabling the processor to perform the encoding method of claim 8 to generate the bitstream and that this bitstream is also stored on the same non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. As such, the computer-readable medium provides a functional relationship between the steps/elements generating the bitstream.
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, 8, 14, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,330,290 (the ‘290 patent) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0112733 (“Li”). 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 3 and 15 of the ‘290 patent in view of Li and claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 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 3 of the ‘290 patent in view of Li:
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11,330,290
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. A video decoding method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for a current block;
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for the current block;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates, and a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates;
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates,
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation by two binary digits to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying a logical shift operation to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
Examiner notes that the logical shift operation being a left shift of 2 digits is merely a routine mathematical scaling, i.e., a change in size/proportion, which, by itself, does not make the claim distinctly patentable. See MPEP 2144.
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate;
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate.
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates.
1. Limitation 8: the flag is signalled at a picture level.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the flag is signalled at a picture level.
The claims of the ‘290 patent do not recite “a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates”. However, Li discloses that it was known for offset vector direction to be determined by an index specifying direction candidates (see, e.g., ¶102). To one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to include such an index to determine offset vector direction in the claims in light of Li and modifying the claims to describe such would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,575,932 (the ‘932 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 3, 12, and 16 of the ‘932 patent and claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 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 3 of the ‘932 patent:
Instant Application
‘932 Patent
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for a current block;
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for the current block;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 3: determining an offset vector for the current block…
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates, and a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates;
1. Limitations 3-5: determining an offset vector for the current block based on a first index information and a second index information, wherein the first index information specifies one among motion magnitude candidates and the second index information specifies one among vector direction candidates,… and a direction of the offset vector is obtained based on the vector direction candidates specified by the second index information;
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation by two binary digits to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
1. Limitation 5: wherein… the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying a logical shift operation to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
Examiner notes that the logical shift operation being a left shift of 2 digits is merely a routine mathematical scaling, i.e., a change in size/proportion, which, by itself, does not make the claim distinctly patentable. See MPEP 2144.
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate;
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate;
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates.
1. Limitation 8: the flag is signalled at a picture level.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the flag is signalled at a picture level.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 4, 12, 14, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,812,051 (the ‘051 patent) in view of Li. 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 2, 4, 12, 14, and 17 of the ‘051 patent in view of Li and claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 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 4 of the ‘051 patent in view of Li:
Instant Application
‘051 Patent
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. A video decoding method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for a current block;
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for the current block;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates, and a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates;
1. Limitation 5: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates,
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation by two binary digits to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
4. wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying a logical shift operation to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
Examiner notes that the logical shift operation being a left shift of 2 digits is merely a routine mathematical scaling, i.e., a change in size/proportion, which, by itself, does not make the claim distinctly patentable. See MPEP 2144.
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate;
1. Limitation 4: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate.
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates…
1. Limitation 8: the flag is signalled at a picture level.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the flag is signalled at a picture level.
The claims of the ‘051 patent do not recite “a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates”. However, Li discloses that it was known for offset vector direction to be determined by an index specifying direction candidates (see, e.g., ¶102). To one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to include such an index to determine offset vector direction in the claims in light of Li and modifying the claims to describe such would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 10, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,108,074 (the ‘074 patent) in view of Li. 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 3, 10, and 16 of the ‘074 patent in view of Li and claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 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 3 of the ‘074 patent in view of Li:
Instant Application
‘074 Patent
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. A video decoding method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for a current block;
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for the current block;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates, and a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates;
1. Limitation 5: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates,
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation by two binary digits to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
1. Limitation 6: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying a logical shift operation to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
Examiner notes that the logical shift operation being a left shift of 2 digits is merely a routine mathematical scaling, i.e., a change in size/proportion, which, by itself, does not make the claim distinctly patentable. See MPEP 2144.
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate;
1. Limitation 7: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate.
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates.
1. Limitation 8: the flag is signalled at a picture level.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the flag is signalled at a picture level.
The claims of the ‘074 patent do not recite “a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates”. However, Li discloses that it was known for offset vector direction to be determined by an index specifying direction candidates (see, e.g., ¶102). To one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to include such an index to determine offset vector direction in the claims in light of Li and modifying the claims to describe such would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 11, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,452,449 (the ‘449 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 3, 11, and 18 of the ‘449 patent and claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 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 3 of the ‘449 patent:
Instant Application
‘449 Patent
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. A video decoding method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for a current block;
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for the current block;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates, and a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates;
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates,
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates.
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation by two binary digits to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate;
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate.
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
1. Limitation 8: the flag is signalled at a picture level.
1. Limitation 8: the flag is signalled at a picture level.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19,381,888 (the ‘888 application). 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 3, 12, and 16 of the ‘888 application and claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 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 3 of the ‘888 application:
Instant Application
‘888 Application
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for a current block;
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for the current block;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block…
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates, and a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block based on a first index information and second index information signalled in a bitstream, wherein the first index information specifies one among motion magnitude candidates and the second index specifies one among vector direction candidates,
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation by two binary digits to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
1. Limitation 4: a magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information, and
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate;
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate; and
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
2 (Original). The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
1. Limitation 8: the flag is signalled at a picture level.
3. (Original) The method according to claim 2, wherein the flag is signalled at a picture level.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19,381,913 (the ‘913 application). 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 3, 12, and 16 of the ‘913 application and claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 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 3 of the ‘913 application:
Instant Application
‘913 Application
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. (Original) A video decoding device, comprising:
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for a current block;
1. Limitation 3: generating a merge candidate list for the current block;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 4: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 5: deriving an offset vector for the current block…
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates, and a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates;
1. Limitation 5: deriving an offset vector for the current block based on a first index information and second index information signalled in a bitstream, wherein the first index information specifies one among motion magnitude candidates and the second index specifies one among vector direction candidates,
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation by two binary digits to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
1. Limitation 6: a magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information, and
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate;
1. Limitation 8: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate; and
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
2 (Original). The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
1. Limitation 8: the flag is signalled at a picture level.
3. (Original) The method according to claim 2, wherein the flag is signalled at a picture level.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 10, and 16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19,381,934 (the ‘888 application) in view of Li. 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 3, 10, and 16 of the ‘934 application in view of Li and claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 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 3 of the ‘934 application in view of Li:
Instant Application
‘934 Application
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for a current block;
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for the current block;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block;
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates, and a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates;
1. Limitation 5: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates;
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation by two binary digits to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
1. Limitation 6: a magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information, and
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate;
1. Limitation 7: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate; and
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
2 (Original). The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
1. Limitation 8: the flag is signalled at a picture level.
3. (Original) The method according to claim 2, wherein the flag is signalled at a picture level.
The claims of the ‘934 application do not recite “a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates”. However, Li discloses that it was known for offset vector direction to be determined by an index specifying direction candidates (see, e.g., ¶102). To one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to include such an index to determine offset vector direction in the claims in light of Li and modifying the claims to describe such would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
Claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 10, and 16 of U.S. Patent Application No. 19,382,034 (the ‘888 application) in view of Li. 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 3, 10, and 16 of the ‘034 application in view of Li and claims 1, 8, 14, and 18 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 3 of the ‘034 application in view of Li:
Instant Application
‘034 Application
1. (Original) A video decoding method comprising the steps of:
1. (Original) A video decoding device, comprising:
1. Limitation 1: generating a merge candidate list for a current block;
1. Limitation 3: generating a merge candidate list for the current block;
1. Limitation 2: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 4: determining a merge candidate for the current block among merge candidates included in the merge candidate list;
1. Limitation 3: deriving an offset vector for the current block,
1. Limitation 5: deriving an offset vector for the current block;
1. Limitation 4: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates, and a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates;
1. Limitation 7: wherein a magnitude of the offset vector is determined based on first index information specifying one among motion magnitude candidates;
1. Limitation 5: wherein the magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation by two binary digits to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information; and
1. Limitation 8: wherein the a magnitude of the offset vector is obtained by applying an arithmetic left shift operation to a value indicated by the motion magnitude candidate specified by the first index information, and
1. Limitation 6: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate;
1. Limitation 9: deriving a motion vector for the current block by adding the offset vector to a motion vector of the merge candidate; and
1. Limitation 7: wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
2 (Original). The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one among a maximum numerical value and a minimum numerical value of the motion magnitude candidates is set differently according to a numerical value of a flag indicating a numerical range of the motion magnitude candidates, and
1. Limitation 8: the flag is signalled at a picture level.
3. (Original) The method according to claim 2, wherein the flag is signalled at a picture level.
The claims of the ‘034 application do not recite “a direction of the offset vector is determined based on second index information specifying one among vector direction candidates”. However, Li discloses that it was known for offset vector direction to be determined by an index specifying direction candidates (see, e.g., ¶102). To one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, it would have been obvious to include such an index to determine offset vector direction in the claims in light of Li and modifying the claims to describe such would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results.
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 on 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LINDSAY J UHL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights