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 .
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, 22, 33-35, 37-38 and 44-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2019/160860), hereinafter Chen in view of Xu et al. (U.S. 2020/0221100), hereinafter Xu, Matsuo et al. ("Modification/simplification of intra angular prediction", JCTVC-H0109, 1-10 February 2012), hereinafter Matsuo and Zhang et al. (U.S. 2022/0070454), hereinafter Zhang. A copy of Chen and Matsuo were filed by the Applicant on 3/17/22. Xu was cited by the Examiner on the PTO-892 dated 1/23/25.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Chen discloses a device for video decoding, comprising one or more processors (Chen [0011]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine a size of a first coding block (Chen fig. 10, #1003, [0076]);
determine, based on the size of the first coding block, a first motion vector (MV) precision associated with a first MV for an inter-prediction of the first coding block (Chen [0076] and fig. 10, #1004), wherein the first MV precision is greater than a second MV precision associated with a second MV for an inter-prediction of the second coding block (Chen [0058], [0076], [0124] and fig. 10);
obtain the first MV based on the first MV precision (Chen [0076] and fig. 10, #1004);
determine a first interpolation filter number of taps (Chen [00117]) based on the size of the first coding block (Chen [0124] and fig. 10);
obtain, based on the first MV and the first interpolation filter number of taps (Chen [00117]) , a reference sample for the inter-prediction of the first coding block (Chen fig. 10); and
decode the first coding block based on the reference sample (Chen [00120]-[00121]).
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first MV precision is greater than a second MV precision associated with a second MV for an inter-prediction of the second coding block, and the size of the first coding block is larger than a size of the second coding block.
However, Xu teaches wherein the first MV precision is greater than a second MV precision associated with a second MV for an inter-prediction of the second coding block, and the size of the first coding block is larger than a size of the second coding block (Xu [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Chen with the missing limitations as taught by Matsuo to provide better prediction for larger blocks (Xu [0089]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of provided better prediction for larger block sizes.
Chen does not explicitly disclose that a filter “length” is indicated by taps and wherein the first interpolation filter length is less than a second interpolation filter length associated with a second coding block, and the size of the first coding block is larger than a size of the second coding block.
However, Matsuo teaches a method comprising:
that a filter “length” is indicated by taps (Matsuo p. 3, section 2.2);
wherein the first interpolation filter length is less than a second interpolation filter length associated with the second coding block (Matsuo p. 2, section 2.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Chen in view of Xu with the missing limitations as taught by Matsuo to improve video coding efficiency as a result of by encoding or decoding digital video information more efficiently (Matsuo p. 1, Abstract).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of creating a more flexible interpolation filter.
Chen does not explicitly disclose that the same filter parameters can be applied to intra and inter prediction.
However, Zhang teaches that the same filter parameters can be applied to intra and inter prediction (Zhang [0005] and [0198]-[0202]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Chen in view of Xu and Matsuo with the missing limitations as taught by Zhang to provide higher coding efficiency (Zhang [0039]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of creating a more flexible interpolation filter.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Chen in view of Xu, Matsuo and Zhang teaches the device and method of claims 1 and 8, wherein the first MV precision is obtained from a plurality of MV precisions, wherein the reference sample is a second reference sample, wherein the second reference sample is associated with a fractional location of a reference block of the first coding block, and wherein the second reference sample is obtained based on a first reference sample associated with an integer location of the reference block of the first coding block (Chen [0058], [0076], [0124] and fig. 10);
The same motivation and analysis for claim 1 applies to claims 2 and 9.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Chen in view of Xu, Matsuo and Zhang teaches the device and method of claims 1 and 8, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: determine a MV for a sub-block in the first coding block; and predict the sub-block in an affine mode (Chen [0004]) using the MV for the sub-block and the first interpolation filter length that is determined based on the size of the first coding block (Chen [0004] and [0059]).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 1 applies to claims 3 and 10.
Regarding claim 22, Chen in view of Xu, Matsuo and Zhang teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions for causing one or more processors to perform the method (Chen [0011]) of claim 8 (see citations and analysis for claim 8).
Regarding claims 33 and 37, claims 33 and 37 recites analogous limitations to claims 1 and 8 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claims 33 and 37 disclose an inverse of decoding and Chen discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Chen figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claims 34 and 38, see claims 2 and 33.
Regarding claim 35, see claims 3 and 33.
Regarding claim 44, see claims 3 and 37.
Regarding claims 45-47, see claim 19 and claims 37, 8 and 33.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Xu, Matsuo and Zhang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Winger (U.S. 2009/0225844).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Xu, Matsuo and Zhang teaches the device of claim 2. Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first interpolation filter length is one, and the second reference sample is the same as the first reference sample.
However, Winger teaches, wherein the first interpolation filter length is one, and the second reference sample is the same as the first reference sample (Winger [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Chen in view of Xu, Matsuo and Zhang with the missing limitations as taught by Winger to save memory bandwidth (Winger [0040]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of saving memory bandwidth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/25/25 in regards to the previously presented portions of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed in regard to the newly amended claims have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection being used in the current rejection, i.e. Chen in view of Xu, Matsuo and Zhang.
After further consideration of the Applicant’s amendments, Chen at least discloses motion vectors may have sub-pel accuracy or fractional pixel precision as the Applicant states (p. 7 of the Applicant’s Remarks). Further, Chen teaches determining a motion vector precision (i.e. any precision initially) is based on a size ([0076] and fig. 10). Finally, as the determination step has changed, the previously cited prior art reference Xu teaches that a higher motion vector precision can be used for larger blocks (Xu [0089] as cited above).
On p. 8 of the Applicant’s Response, the Applicant argues that paragraph [0005] of Zhang cannot be found in the foreign priority document (PCT/CN/2019/086488).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and has attached an excerpt from the Zhang foreign priority document (PCT/CN2019/086488, paragraph [0005], retrieved from the file wrapper of Zhang, application no. 17/523,131) which discloses the same subject matter as paragraph [0005] of the cited reference Zhang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lim et al. (WO 2018/097700) teaches selecting an interpolation filter based on block size (Lim [1004]). A copy and translation of Lim has been filed by the Applicant on 3/17/22.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached on (571)272-7331. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights