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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 7, claims 1-2, 10-11 and 20 in the reply filed on 5/2/2024 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-9 and 12-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species 1-6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to claim 1 the applicant asserts on pgs. 17-18 of the Remarks that Bross discloses determining the value dmvrSad using ‘prediction blocks’ and does not disclose determining values based on two reference blocks of the current sub-block. The examiner disagrees, Bross Section 8.5.3.1 indicates under the ‘Inputs to this process” section, that the arrays refPicL0 and refPicL1 are samples obtained from reference pictures. Bross discloses details of the construction of reference picture lists in section 8.3.2 including the requirement that each entry in the reference picture lists 0 and 1 are different than the current picture. Hence, contrary to the applicants argument, the arrays refPicL0 and refPicL1 are sample values of two reference blocks from reference pictures of the current sub-block.
The applicants further arguments are made in regard to newly amended limitations for which a rejection is provided below.
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) 1-2, 11-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al (2021/0029378) in view of Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7)” (provided by the applicant in the IDS filed 2/27/2023, hereafter referred to by first author Bross) for the same reasons as provided in the Office Action dated 7/24/2025.
In regard to claim 1 He discloses an inter prediction method, applied to an encoder (He Figs. 2 and 4 and generally pars 84-98) and comprising:
determining a first motion vector (MV) and a second MV of a current block, the first MV being a forward MV and of the current block and the second MV being a backward MV of the current block (He Fig. 4 and par. 86 note determining (MVx0, MVy0) and (MVx1 and MVy1) as the forward and backward MV of a current block);
determining whether BDOF is enabled based on directions of the first MV and the second MV to being the same (He pars. 88-89 note BDOF disabled when first and second motion vectors refer to the same reference picture, and hence, point in the same temporal direction);
determining an inter prediction value of the current block or at least one sub-block in the current block based on the application of a BDOF process (He pars 84-85 note determining refinements to motion vectors that are used in the inter prediction process when BDOF is applied).
It is noted that He does not explicitly disclose a BDOF flag. However Bross discloses an inter prediction process including:
determining a first motion vector (MV) and a second MV of a current block, the first MV being a forward MV and of the current block and the second MV being a backward MV of the current block (Bross section 8.5.6.1 note the top of pg. 264, motion vectors mvL0, mvL1, refMVL0 and refMVL1) also note reference indices refIdxL0 and refIdxL1 indicating the reference pictures pointed to by the motion vectors);
determining whether a set condition is satisfied based on the first MV and the second MV to obtain a determination result
(Bross section 8.5.6.1 on pg. 264 note various conditions ‘based on’ the motion vectors including determining whether the L0 and L1 references associated with mvL0 and mvL1 are short term or long term pictures, and, particularly note, determining if DiffPicOrderCnt(curPic, RefPicList[0][refIdxL0]) is equal to DiffPicOrderCnt(RefPicList[1][refIdxL1], curPic), which determines the picture order count POC difference between the current picture L0 reference picture pointed to by mvL0 is equal to POC difference between the distance between the L1 reference picture pointed to by mvL1, as noted section 8.3.1 on pg. 167, in order to be equal the temporal distance between each reference and the current frame must be the same magnitude and in opposite temporal directions, that is reference L1 must be a future picture and, and ref L0 must be past picture and hence the motion vectors mvL0 and mvL1 must have opposite temporal directions)
setting a value of a Bi-Directional Optical Flow Prediction (BDOF) flag according to the determination result (Bross section 8.5.6.1 note BDOF flag is set to true if all conditions are met, and is otherwise set to false); and
determining an inter prediction value of the current block or at least one sub-block in the current block based on the value of the BDOF flag (Bross section 8.5.6.1 pages 264-266 note determining an array predSamples of prediction samples based on the value of the BDOF flag).
wherein determining whether the set condition is satisfied based on the first MV and the second MV to obtain the determination result comprises:
determining a first reference block to which the first MV points and a second reference block to which the second MV points (Bross section 8.5.6.1 near the bottom of pg. 265 starting with ‘If bdofFlag is equal to True’ note obtaining the value of dmvrSad, further note section 8.5.3.1 determining dmvrSad by obtaining reference picture sample arrays, or blocks, refPicL0L and refPicL1L which are pointed to by mvL0 and mvL1, additionally note section 8.5.3.2 for a detailed description of obtaining the reference blocks by filling the array predSamplesLXL with values from reference pictures at the locations pointed to by the motion vector mvL0 and mvL1)
determining a difference block corresponding to a current sub-block, the difference block being determined based on corresponding samples in the first reference block and corresponding samples in the second reference block (Bross section 8.5.3.1 note determining a value dmvrSad by taking reference picture sample arrays refPicL0L and refPicL1L and determining a minimum sum of absolute differences (minSad) value on the reference picture sample arrays, further note section 8.5.3.3 which obtains a sum of absolute differences value by summing the differences between each pixel in two sample arrays L0 and L1, hence the process of determining the dmvrSad value requires computing a difference between two reference blocks and thus determines a difference block); and
determining whether the difference block satisfies the set condition to obtain the determination result, wherein the set condition comprises one of: a maximum time gradient corresponding to each sample in the current subblock is a third set value; a sum of time gradients corresponding to each sample in the current sub-block is the third set value; a sum of differences within a range of the current sub-block in the difference block is the third set value, and an absolute maximum within a range of the current sub-block in the difference block is less than a fourth set value; (Bross section 8.5.3.1 note determining variable minSAD by invoking a sum of absolute differences calculation in 8.5.3.3 and providing sample arrays predSamplesL0 and predSamples L1 which are reference blocks corresponding to the first and second reference pixels, further note section 8.5.3.3 minSAD determines a difference block between the reference sample blocks represented by pL0 and pL1 which represent the prediction blocks predSamplesL0 and predSamplesL1 provided to the sum of absolute differences calculation process, further note that the minSAD value calculated in 8.5.3.3 is a difference between first and second reference blocks and thus is a ‘time gradient’ as defined in par. 144 of the applicants specification which indicates that a time gradient is determined by subtracting each pixel of a backward prediction sub-block from a forward prediction sub-block, and thus the minSAD value is ‘a sum of time gradients corresponding to each sample in the current sub-block’, finally note that the variable dmvrSAD is set equal to minSAD and compared in section 8.5.6.1 bridging pgs. 265 and 266 to a threshold bdofBlkDiffThres which meets the requirement of determining whether the sum of time gradients corresponding to each sample in the current sub-block is the third set value);
wherein setting the value of the BDOF flag according to the determination result comprises:
setting, when the determination result indicates that difference block does not satisfy the set condition, a value of a BDOF flag corresponding to the current sub-block to be a first set value (Bross section 8.5.6.1 bridging pgs. 265 and 266 note the condition is satisfied if dmvrSad is not less than bdofBlkDiffThres and the sub-block BDOF flag sbBdofFlag is set to true); and
setting, when the determination result indicates that the difference block doe satisfies the set condition, the value of the BDOF flag corresponding to the current sub-block to be a second value (Bross section 8.5.6.1 on pg. 266 note setting the sbBdofFlag to false if dmvrSad is less than bdofBlkDiffThres);
wherein the BDOF flag corresponding to the current sub-block is set to true when the value of the BDOF flag corresponding to the current sub-block is the first value, and the BDOF flag corresponding to the current sub-block is set to be false when the value of the BDOF flag corresponding to the current sub-block is set to a second value (Bross section 8.5.6.1 on pg. 266 note setting the sub-block BDOF flag sbBdofFlag equal to true if dmvrSad is not less than bdofBlkDiffThres, and setting the sbBdofFlag to false if dmvrSad is less than bdofBlkDiffThres).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating a BDOF flag and setting conditions as taught by Bross in the invention of He in order to gain the expected advantages of fast determination of whether BDOF is to be applied using a flag and compliance with the VVC standard as suggested by Bross (Bross abstract note Bross document defining the emerging VVC standard).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Bross further discloses that the setting the value of the BDOF flag according to the determination result further comprises:
setting, when the determination result indicates that the first MV and the second MV point in different directions, the value of the BDOF flag corresponding to the current block to be the first set value
(Bross section 8.5.6.1 on pg. 264 note determining whether DiffPicOrderCnt(curPic, RefPicList[0][refIdxL0]) is equal to DiffPicOrderCnt(RefPicList[1][refIdxL1], curPic) which requires the motion vectors have different temporal directions as noted in detail above, further note the BDOF flag may be set to true if the values are equal, indicating different temporal directions) ; and
setting, when the determination result indicates that the first MV and the second MV point to a same direction, the value of the BDOF flag corresponding to the current block to be the second set value,
(Bross section 8.5.6.1 on pg. 264, also note section 8.3.1 on pg. 167, if mvL0 and mvL1 referred to reference pictures L0 and L1 that were in the same temporal direction the POC difference curPic-L0 and L1-curPic could not be equal in value and the BDOF flag would be set to false)
wherein
the BDOF flag corresponding to the current block is set to be true when the value of the BDOF flag corresponding to the current block is the first set value, and the BDOF flag corresponding to the current block is set to be false when the value of the BDOF flag corresponding to the current block is the second value (Bross section 8.5.6.1 on pg. 264 note if the POC differences are equal and the other conditions are met the BDOF flag is set to true, if the POC differences are not equal BDOF flag is false).
Claims 11 and 12 relate to an inter prediction method in a decoder that substantially corresponds to the inter prediction method in the encoder of claims 1-2 and 10 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claims 1-2 and 10 above for the rejection of the common elements of claims 11 and 12 which will not be repeated here for brevity.
In particular regard to claims 11 and 12 He further disclose a decoder (He Fig. 3).
In particular regard to claim 12 Bross further discloses determining the inter prediction of the value of the current block or at least one sub-block in the current block based on the value of the BDOF flag comprises:
determining, when the value of the BDOF flag corresponding to the current block is a first value, the inter prediction value of the current block based on BDOF (Bross section 8.5..6.1 on pg. 266 note if sbBdofFlag is true, a bi-directional optical flow sample prediction process is used); and
determining, when the value of the BDOF flag corresponding to the current block is the second set value, the inter prediction value of the current block according to the first MV and the second MV (Bross section 8.5..6.1 on pg. 266 note if sbBdofFlag is false, a weighted sample prediction process is used).
Claim 20 relate to an encoder comprised of a processor and a memory including instructions to cause the processor to perform steps that substantially corresponds to the inter prediction method in the encoder of claim 1 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claims 1 above for the rejection of claim 20 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claim 20 He further discloses implementing an encoder using a processor and a memory (He par. 25 note communication system used to implement embodiments, further note Fig. 1B and par. 39 processor 119 and memory 130).
Conclusion
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 JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights