DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 10/08/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Priority
3. 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
4 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/08/2025. The submission is following the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
5. The Obviousness 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 non-statutory 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 Langi, 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 CPR l.32l(c) or l.32l(d) may
be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory 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 CPR l.32l(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory 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. l. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CPR 1.11 l(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CPR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CPR 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, to refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatented over Co-Pending application App. No 19/473,709 (Pre-Grant Pub (US20260281430A1)).
Although the claims of the instant application are not identical, to those of the referenced patent, they are not patentably distinct therefrom. The difference between the claim sets are merely in terminology, as illustrated in the claim comparison table below, and do not result in any patentable distinction.
Accordingly, the instant claims are considered to be an obvious variation of the claims of the cited patent.
To overcome this rejection, a terminal disclaimer must be filed. The terminal disclaimer must disclaim any term of the instant application that would extends beyond the term of the referenced patent and must include the required common ownership and enforceable provisions under C.F.R. § 1.321.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 19/473,709 in view of Chen et al. (US-20240244197-A1)
The following table provides an exemplary comparison representative claims and illustrates the substantial overlap in the claimed subject matter.
19/473,754
(Instant Application)
( Pre-Grant Pub US20260292244A1)
19/473,709
(Co-Pending Application)
( Pre-Grant Pub US20260281430A1)
EXEMPLARY CLAIM 1
CLAIM 1
1.(Currently amended) An image decoding device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
construct a block vector candidate list, derive one or more block vectors for a block to be decoded from the block vector candidate list and generate second predicted pixels from the block vectors, based on the decoded pixels and the control information;
a step of decoding control information and quantization values;
a step of dequantizing the quantization values to derive transform coefficients;
a step of inverse-transforming the transform coefficients to derive a prediction residual;
a step of generating first predicted pixels based on decoded pixels and the control information;
a step of constructing a block vector candidate list, derive one or more block vectors for a block to be decoded from the block vector candidate list and generate second predicted pixels from the block vectors, based on the decoded pixels and the control information;
a step of generating, from two or more block vectors with integer pixel precision or fractional pixel precision for a block to be decoded, the second predicted pixels based on the decoded pixels and the control information;
a step of storing the decoded pixels;
a step of generating third predicted pixels based on the stored decoded pixels and the control information; and
a step of adding the prediction residual and the first predicted pixels to the third predicted pixels to derive the decoded pixels.
19.(Currently amended) A computer-readable non-transitory tangible storage medium storing thereon a program causing, when executed, one or more processors in a first wireless communication apparatus to execute
values;
for a block to be decoded, the second predicted pixels based on the decoded pixels and the control information;
1.(Currently amended) An image decoding device comprising:
a memory storing instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
a step of decoding control information and quantization values;
a step of dequantizing the quantization values to derive transform coefficients;
a step of inverse-transforming the transform coefficients to derive a prediction residual;
a step of generating first predicted pixels based on decoded pixels and the control information;
a step of generating, from two or more block vectors with integer pixel precision or fractional pixel precision for a block to be decoded, the second predicted pixels based on the decoded pixels and the control information;
a step of storing the decoded pixels;
a step of generating third predicted pixels based on the stored decoded pixels and the control information; and
a step of adding the prediction residual and the first predicted pixels to the third predicted pixels to derive the decoded pixels.
8.(Currently amended) A computer-readable non-transitory tangible storage medium storing thereon a program causing, when executed, one or more processors in a first wireless communication apparatus to execute
values;
;
be decoded, the second predicted pixels based on the decoded pixels and the control information;
The claims are similar in their overall intra-frame block-vector predication approach;
however, the distinction is that the instant claim further recites “construct a block vector candidate list, derive one or more block vectors for a block to be decoded from the block vector candidate list and generate second predicted pixels from the block vectors”
Chen et al. (US-20240244197-A1) expressly teaches this candidate-list based block-vector predication concept. In particular, Chen claim 8 recites constructing a vector candidate list including vectors of neighboring blocks and determining the block vector based on the vector candidate list. Consistent with claim 8, Chen further teaches constructing a candidate list of block vector predictors from block vectors of neighboring or proximate blocks and selecting a block vector predictor from the candidate list (¶[0083]). In IBC merge mode, the selected block vector predictors is set as the block vector, while in IBC_AMVP mode, a block vector difference is added to the selected block vector predictor to obtain the block vector for the current block (¶[0083]). Chen further teaches that the resulting block vector identifies a location of reference samples in the current picture from which a prediction block is generated (¶¶[0024], [0103], [0110]-[0112], and [0237]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Chen’s known candidate-list-based block-vector derivation in the block-vector predication of the copending claims to obtain the block vector used for predication. Accordingly, the identified distinction does not render the instant claim patentably distinct from the claimed subject matter of the copending application.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE whose telephone number is (703)756-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Fr 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (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 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.
/ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2481 /WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights