DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a response to an application filed on 10/27/2025, in which claims 2-21 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2025 are 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, 12, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,477,141. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 12, and 21 of the instant application are he broad version, therefore, anticipated by claims 1, 25, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,477,141. Therefore, claim 1, 12, and 21 of the instant application are an obvious variation of claims 1, 23, and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12,477,141.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 2-5, 10-15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (US 2021/0051339 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses: A method of video processing in a decoder (see paragraph 4 and 43), comprising:
receiving a coded video bitstream comprising a current picture, the current picture including a current block (see paragraph 327, conversion between the current block and the bitstream representation of the video);
determining, based on decoded information from the coded video bitstream, that the current block in the current picture is coded in an affine bi-prediction mode (see paragraph 327), wherein the current block is predicted by a plurality of control point motion vectors (see Fig. 14);
refining the plurality of control point motion vectors by applying bilateral matching motion refinement (see paragraph 35, 200, 327, and Fig. 18); and
reconstructing the current block according to the refined plurality of control point motion vectors associated with the current block (see paragraph 331, generate the current block from the bitstream).
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the refining the one or more of the affine parameters comprises:
applying a first set of affine parameter refinement offset values to one or more of first affine parameters of a first affine model associated with a first reference picture (see Liu, paragraph 173 and 236), the affine bi-prediction mode including the first affine model associated with the first reference picture and a second affine model of the current block associated with a second reference picture (see Liu, paragraph 182), the affine parameters including the first affine parameters (see Liu, paragraph 173, 175, and 182).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses: The method of claim 3, the refining the one or more of the affine parameters further comprises:
applying a second set of affine parameter refinement offset values for one or more of second affine parameters of the second affine model according to the first set of affine parameter refinement offset values, the second set of affine parameter refinement offset values being of opposite signs from the first set of affine parameter refinement offset values (see Liu, paragraph 173, 175, and 236).
Regarding claim 5, Liu discloses: The method of claim 3, wherein the first affine model and the second affine model are 4-parameter affine models or 6-parameter affine models (see Liu, paragraph 175).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein
the one or more of the affine parameters include a first affine parameter and a second affine parameter (see Liu, paragraph 208-209); and
the refining includes refining the first affine parameter and the second affine parameter sequentially (see Liu, paragraph 211).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the plurality of CPMVs is determined based on at least one of:
an affine merge candidate (see Liu, paragraph 173); and
an affine merge motion vector difference (MMVD) candidate (see Liu, paragraph 170-171).
Regarding claims 12-15 and 20, claims 12-15 and 20 are drawn to an encoding methods having limitations similar to the decoding method claimed in claims 2-5 and 10 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, method claims 12-15 and 20 correspond to method claims 2-5 and 10 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is drawn to a computer readable medium having limitations similar to the method claimed in claim 2 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, computer readable medium claim 21 corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM A NASRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7158. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-8:00 M-T.
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 on 5712727383. 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.
/MARYAM A NASRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights