DETAILED ACTION
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
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. 16494330, filed on 09/16/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 14 recitation of “a bitstream generated by the video encoding method of claim 8.” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the computer-readable medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes merge list, merge index, merge candidates and other information manipulated by the steps.
To be given patentable weight, recording medium and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the recording medium to which it is associated. See 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 claimed bitstream in claim 14 merely services as a support for the storing of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and computer-readable medium. Therefor the structure of the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III).
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.
Claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by the method of claim 8 appears to describe how the bitstream is generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight
Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream, the bitstream comprising elements that appear to describe how the bitstream is generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight
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) 1-3, 6-9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim et al. US 2013/0230103.
As to claim 1, Lim teaches a video decoding method, comprising: generating a merge list for a target block; [¶ 0087-0094; ¶ 0135] and performing inter prediction for the target block using the merge list. [¶ 0084; ¶ 0134]
As to claim 2, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Lim teaches further comprising determining whether to use a merge mode using a merge identifier, wherein a specific prediction mode among a plurality of prediction modes is selected in a case that that merge mode is performed. [figs. 1-5; fig. 9; fig. 10; ¶ 0045; ¶ 0060-0063; ¶ 0072; ¶ 0076-0086; ¶ 0083-0084; ¶ 0087-0094; ¶ 0108-0110]
As to claim 3, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 2. Lim teaches wherein: motion information for sub-blocks in the target block are derived in the selected prediction mode. [¶ 0101-0106]
As to claim 6, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Lim teaches wherein: two merge candidates of the merge list are used for the inter prediction. [¶ 0088-0091; ¶ 0110-0112]
As to claim 7, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Lim teaches wherein: the merge list is generated based on a plurality of reference blocks, and the reference blocks include a left-most block among one or more blocks adjacent to an upper side of the target block. [¶ 0090-0099]
As to claim 8, Lim teaches a video encoding method, comprising: generating a merge list for a target block; [¶ 0087-0094; ¶ 0135] and generating a merge index, wherein the merge index indicates a merge candidate to be used for a decoding for the target block using inter prediction among merge candidates in the merge list. [¶ 0083-0084; ¶ 0087-0094; ¶ 0108-0110; ¶ 0134]
As to claim 9, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 8. Lim teaches further comprising generating a merge identifier indicating whether a merge mode is used for the decoding, wherein a specific prediction mode among a plurality of prediction modes is selected for the decoding in a case that that merge mode is performed, and motion information for sub-blocks in the target block are derived in the selected prediction mode. ¶ 0083-0084; ¶ 0087-0094; ¶ 0101-0110]
As to claim 12, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 8. Lim teaches wherein: two merge candidates of the merge list are used for the inter prediction. [¶ 0088-0091; ¶ 0110-0112]
As to claim 13, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 8. Lim teaches wherein: the merge list is generated based on a plurality of reference blocks for the decoding, and the reference blocks include a left-most block among one or more blocks adjacent to an upper side of the target block. [¶ 0090-0099]
Claim(s) 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. US 2016/0286230.
As to claim 14, Li teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by the video encoding method of claim 8. [¶ 0050; ¶ 0056; ¶ 0059; see Claim Interpretation above]
As to claim 15, Li teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream, the bitstream comprising: encoded information for a target block; wherein a decoding for the target block is performed using the encoded information, a merge list for the target block is generated for the decoding, and inter prediction is performed for the target block using the merge list. [¶ 0050; ¶ 0056; ¶ 0059; see Claim Interpretation above]
As to claim 16, Li teaches the limitations of claim 15. wherein: the bitstream further comprises a merger identifier indicating whether a merge mode is used for the decoding, a specific prediction mode among a plurality of prediction modes is selected for the decoding in a case that that merge mode is performed, and motion information for sub-blocks in the target block are derived in the selected prediction mode. [¶ 0050; ¶ 0056; ¶ 0059; see Claim Interpretation above]
As to claim 17, Li teaches the limitations of claim 15. wherein: the bitstream further comprises a merge identifier indicating whether a merge mode is used for the decoding, wherein a specific prediction mode among a plurality of prediction modes is selected for the decoding in a case that that merge mode is performed, and a refinement for motion information of the target block is performed in the selected prediction mode. [¶ 0050; ¶ 0056; ¶ 0059; see Claim Interpretation above]
As to claim 18, Li teaches the limitations of claim 15. wherein: the inter prediction is performed based on an average of motion vectors of a plurality of reference blocks. [¶ 0050; ¶ 0056; ¶ 0059; see Claim Interpretation above]
As to claim 19, Li teaches the limitations of claim 15. wherein: two merge candidates of the merge list are used for the inter prediction. [¶ 0050; ¶ 0056; ¶ 0059; see Claim Interpretation above]
As to claim 20, Li teaches the limitations of claim 15. wherein: the merge list is generated based on a plurality of reference blocks for the decoding, and the reference blocks include a left-most block among one or more blocks adjacent to an upper side of the target block. [¶ 0050; ¶ 0056; ¶ 0059; see Claim Interpretation above]
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) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. US 2013/0230103 in view of Lee et al. US 2019/0191178.
As to claim 4, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 2. Lim does not explicitly teach wherein: a refinement for motion information of the target block is performed in the selected prediction mode.
Lee teaches wherein: a refinement for motion information of the target block is performed in the selected prediction mode. [¶ 0140-0143]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Lee with the teachings of Lim allowing for improved coding efficiency.
As to claim 10, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 8. Lim teaches further comprising generating a merge identifier indicating whether a merge mode is used for the decoding, wherein a specific prediction mode among a plurality of prediction modes is selected for the decoding in a case that that merge mode is performed. [figs. 1-5; fig. 9; fig. 10; ¶ 0045; ¶ 0060-0063; ¶ 0072; ¶ 0076-0086; ¶ 0083-0084; ¶ 0087-0094; ¶ 0108-0110]
Lim does not explicitly teach a refinement for motion information of the target block is performed in the selected prediction mode.
Lee teaches a refinement for motion information of the target block is performed in the selected prediction mode. [¶ 0140-0143]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Lee with the teachings of Lim allowing for improved coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. US 2013/0230103 in view of Lim et al. US 2019/0104312 (Lim 2).
As to claim 5, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 1. Lim does not explicitly teach wherein: the inter prediction is performed based on an average of motion vectors of a plurality of reference blocks.
Lim 2 teaches wherein: the inter prediction is performed based on an average of motion vectors of a plurality of reference blocks. [¶ 0132]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Lim2 with the teachings of Lim allowing for improved motion prediction efficiency.
As to claim 11, Lim teaches the limitations of claim 8. Lim does not explicitly teach wherein: the inter prediction is performed based on an average of motion vectors of a plurality of reference blocks.
Lim 2 teaches wherein: the inter prediction is performed based on an average of motion vectors of a plurality of reference blocks. [¶ 0132]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Lim2 with the teachings of Lim allowing for improved motion prediction efficiency.
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, 6-8, 12-13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12457321. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims are not identical in terms of wording and terminology, the scopes of the claims are the same, and they are not patentably distinct from each other as they are obvious variations of one another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNER HOLDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571.272.7383. 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.
/ANNER HOLDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights