DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment and Argument
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to pending claims 1-5, 11, 13-16, 23-26, 28, 36-39, 41, 43 and 48-50 filed on 10/30/2025 have been fully considered. Examiners response to the applicant’s argument follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Rusert in view of Park and Laroche do not teach the feature of “in an instance in which the motion vector prediction candidate is a temporal motion vector prediction, including the motion vector prediction candidate in the set by adding the temporal motion vector prediction as the last element in the set without comparing the motion vector prediction candidate with other motion vector prediction candidates, wherein the temporal motion vector prediction is at least partly based on motion information of one or more encoded blocks in a frame different from the frame of block of pixels” as recited in claim 1 because “Laroche does not limit this comparison to only the spatial candidates in the candidate set but, instead, is described to compare a spatial candidate to the candidates (presumably both spatial and temporal candidates) already included in the set.”
Applicant further argue that there is no motivation to combine Park with Rusert and Laroche since Park adds motion vector prediction candidates to the set without any comparison of a new motion vector prediction to the motion vector prediction candidates already in the set. Remarks pp. 12-17.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Laroche discloses tools to solve parsing issue related to error caused when previous reference pictures containing temporal MVP candidates are lost. The first proposed tool to solve the issue is forcing the availability of a temporal predictor for the Inter, Skip and Merge modes irrespectively of the existence of this predictor. The second tool is replacement of the duplicate spatial candidates by candidates with different values. Abstract, Sections 2.1-2.2. As such, Laroche discloses always adding the temporal candidate to the list without checking for duplicate while performs the duplicate check for the spatial candidates.
Therefore, Laroche teaches the limitation “in an instance in which the motion vector prediction candidate is a temporal motion vector prediction, including the motion vector prediction candidate in the set by adding the temporal motion vector prediction as the last element in the set without comparing the motion vector prediction candidate with other motion vector prediction candidates, wherein the temporal motion vector prediction is at least partly based on motion information of one or more encoded blocks in a frame different from the frame of block of pixels” as recited in claim 1.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Park discloses a method of efficiently processing a video signal using inter-prediction and using an accurate motion vector to improve the accuracy of restoration of the original image by acquiring an accurate motion vector from motion vector candidates for inter-prediction. Park ¶0003-0013. Park further discloses “when the motion vector of the temporal neighboring block is used as a motion vector predictor candidate according to the temporal competition information, the motion vector of the temporal neighboring block may be added as the last candidate to the motion vector competition list.” It should be noted that Park does not require comparison to add the last candidate into the motion vector list. Park ¶0057.
Thus, Park teaches the limitation “in an instance in which the motion vector prediction candidate is a temporal motion vector prediction, including the motion vector prediction candidate in the set by adding the temporal motion vector prediction as the last element in the set without comparing the motion vector prediction candidate with other motion vector prediction candidates, wherein the temporal motion vector prediction is at least partly based on motion information of one or more encoded blocks in a frame different from the frame of block of pixels”, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rusert using the teaching of Park to improve the accuracy of restoration of the original image by acquiring an accurate motion vector from motion vector candidates for inter-prediction (Park: ¶0013).
Accordingly, the rejection of the pending claims is maintained.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 14-16, 23, 25, 26, 28, 36-39, 41, 43 and 48-50 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rusert et al. (US 2011/0194608 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 20140003522 A1) and Laroche et al. “Robust solution for the AMVP parsing issue” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 5th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 16-23 March, 2011, Document: JCTVC-E219.
Regarding claim 1, Rusert discloses a method for encoding an image into a bitstream, the method comprising: creating, by an encoder, a set of motion vector prediction candidates for a block of pixels, said creating the set comprising (¶0036: creating a set of prediction motion vector (PMV) candidates): in an instance in which the motion vector prediction candidate is a spatial motion vector prediction (¶0017-0018, 0052: Motion vectors to be added to a PMV_CANDS list may comprise spatial or temporal neighbors of the current block), performing a comparison of motion vector information of the motion vector prediction candidate with motion vector information of at least one other spatial motion vector prediction candidate in the set and determining whether to include the motion vector prediction candidate in the set or not based on the comparison (¶0052, 0056: when updating the list, by comparing the candidates already in the list with the new vector that could be added, and if a duplicate is found, either removing the duplicate vector or skipping the new vector), wherein the spatial motion vector prediction is based on motion information of one or more encoded blocks in the same frame as the frame of the block of pixels (¶0052: spatial neighbors of the current block); selecting one motion vector prediction candidate from the set to represent a motion vector prediction for the block of pixels (¶0025, 0037: selecting a particular PMV candidate from the list of PMV candidates); and providing information of the selected one motion vector prediction candidate for encoding and transmission to a decoder or for storage (Figs. 2a-2b, ¶0037-0038Using the transmitted index, the decoder 150 can determine the PMV 220 as used in the encoder), wherein the temporal motion vector prediction is at least partly based on motion information of one or more encoded blocks in a frame different from the frame of the block of pixels (¶00521: temporal neighbors of the current block).
Rusert does not explicitly disclose wherein the comparison of the motion vector information of the motion vector prediction candidate is performed without comparing the motion vector information of the motion vector prediction candidate with motion vector information of one or more temporal motion vector prediction candidates in the set; in an instance in which the motion vector prediction candidate is a temporal motion vector prediction, including the motion vector prediction candidate in the set without comparing the motion vector prediction candidate with other motion vector prediction candidates.
However, Park discloses in an instance in which the motion vector prediction candidate is a temporal motion vector prediction, including the motion vector prediction candidate in the set by adding the temporal motion vector prediction as the last element in the set without comparing the motion vector prediction candidate with other motion vector prediction candidates, wherein the temporal motion vector prediction is at least partly based on motion information of one or more encoded blocks in a frame different from the frame of block of pixels (¶0057: When the motion vector of the temporal neighboring block is used as a motion vector predictor candidate according to the temporal competition information, the motion vector of the temporal neighboring block may be added as the last candidate to the motion vector competition list). Note that Park does not require comparing the motion vector candidate.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rusert using the teaching of Park to improve the accuracy of restoration of the original image by acquiring an accurate motion vector from motion vector candidates for inter-prediction (Park: ¶0013).
Furthermore, Laroche discloses wherein the comparison of the motion vector information of the motion vector prediction candidate is performed without comparing the motion vector information of the motion vector prediction candidate with motion vector information of one or more temporal motion vector prediction candidates in the set (abstract: “The first tool consists in forcing the availability of a temporal predictor for the Inter, Skip and Merge modes whatever the existence of this predictor. The second tool consists in replacing the duplicate candidates by candidates with different (non-redundant) values”). Note that Laroche discloses always adding the temporal candidate to the list without checking for duplicate while performs the duplicate check for the spatial candidates. See also Sections 2.1-2.2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rusert in view of Park by utilizing the teaching of Laroche in order to resolve parsing related issue to the temporal motion prediction (Laroche: abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Rusert discloses creating an additional motion vector prediction candidate based on one or more previously added motion vector predictors in the set (¶0069: A low number of similar candidates on the other hand may indicate that it may be beneficial to have an additional candidate, thus the list size may be increased).
Regarding claim 4, Rusert discloses wherein each motion vector prediction candidate is associated with a list index in the set, and if a motion vector prediction candidate is determined to be removed due to motion vector information corresponding with another motion vector prediction candidate, the method further comprising: examining the list index of the motion vector prediction candidate and the list index of the another motion vector prediction candidate, and removing the motion vector prediction candidate which has a greater list index (¶0080: It is easy to see given that the vector difference is coded using Table 3 below, that is will never be beneficial to use index 3, because using index 0 will always be one bit cheaper or better. Hence, we can eliminate the candidate vector (0,2)).
Regarding claim 5, Rusert discloses wherein the temporal motion vector prediction candidate is based on motion vectors of co-located blocks of a current frame and a previously encoded frame (¶0004: a PMV is derived as the median of the motion vectors of three spatially neighboring blocks. Other approaches consider also temporally neighboring blocks (i.e. co- located in neighboring frames) for motion vector prediction).
Regarding claim 26, Rusert discloses wherein each motion vector prediction candidate is associated with a list index in the set, and wherein selecting one motion vector prediction candidate from the set comprises determining the list index of the one motion vector prediction in the set, and wherein providing information of the selected one motion vector prediction candidate comprises encoding the list index of the one motion vector prediction for transmission to the decoder or for storage (¶0037-0038: a code "index" 250 is sent to select a particular PMV candidate, in this case 242 from a list of PMV candidates, PMV_CANDS 240 as shown in FIG. 2a…Using the transmitted index, the decoder 150 can determine the PMV 220 as used in the encoder as shown in FIG. 2b).
Regarding claim 39, Rusert discloses performing a motion compensated prediction based on the motion vector prediction candidate that is selected to predict the block of pixels (Fig. 2a, ¶0037, 0042: the PMV_CANDS list used for coding a motion vector MV associated with a current motion compensation block can be dynamically generated specifically for the current motion compensation block); subtracting the motion compensated prediction from the block of pixels to produce prediction error (Figs. 1, 2a, 0037: the prediction error or difference (DMV) 230 is found according to DMV=MV-PMV); and encoding the prediction error in the bitstream (Figs. 1, 2a, ¶0035, 0037: encoded video stream).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 3, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 4, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 5, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 23, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable medium claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 25, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 5, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claim 28, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 26, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 26.
Regarding claim 36, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 26, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 26.
Regarding claim 37, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 3, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 38, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 4, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Regarding claim 41, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 39, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 39.
Regarding claim 43, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 39, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 39.
Regarding claim 48, Rusert discloses wherein first and second blocks of pixels are used to obtain the motion vector information of the first and second motion vector prediction candidates, respectively, and wherein the method further comprises determining whether to remove a motion vector prediction candidate from the set of motion vector prediction candidates by comparing first and second motion vector prediction candidates based on one or more of: motion vector values of the first and second motion vector prediction candidates, coding or prediction types of the first and second blocks, size of the first and second blocks, spatial locations of the first and second blocks, information regarding whether the first and second blocks share a same motion, or information regarding whether the first and second blocks are in a same coding or prediction unit (¶0056-0057, 0072: removing motion vectors based on Euclidian distance or absolute distance between a pair of motion vectors under consideration).
Regarding claim 49, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 48, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 48.
Regarding claim 50, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 48, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 48.
Claims 2, 13 and 24 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rusert et al. (US 2011/0194608 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 20140003522 A1) and Laroche et al. “Robust solution for the AMVP parsing issue” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 5th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 16-23 March, 2011, Document: JCTVC-E219 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sugio et al. (US 20120307902 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Rusert in view of Park and Laroche do not explicitly disclose wherein said performing the comparison further comprises comparing a reference index of the spatial motion vector prediction candidate with a reference index of the at least one spatial motion vector already included in the set, and wherein determining whether to include the motion vector prediction candidate in the set comprises determining to add the spatial motion vector prediction candidate to the set when the spatial motion vector prediction candidate and the reference index are not equal to the at least one spatial motion vector prediction candidate already included in the set and the reference index of the at least one spatial motion vector prediction candidate already included in the set.
However, Sugio discloses wherein said performing the comparison further comprises comparing a reference index of the spatial motion vector prediction candidate with a reference index of the at least one spatial motion vector already included in the set, and wherein determining whether to include the motion vector prediction candidate in the set comprises determining to add the spatial motion vector prediction candidate to the set when the spatial motion vector prediction candidate and the reference index are not equal to the at least one spatial motion vector prediction candidate already included in the set and the reference index of the at least one spatial motion vector prediction candidate already included in the set (¶0093, Figs. 3-4: when MvL0_A = MvL0_D and RefL0_A=RefL0_D, remove one of neighboring blocks A and D).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Rusert in view of Park and Laroche by utilizing the teaching of Sugio for increasing coding efficiency for image coding and decoding (Sugio: ¶0006-0007).
Regarding claim 13, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 2, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding claim 24, the claim is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim and recites the limitation similar to claim 2, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 2.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488