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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed February 20, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Chen have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Liao et al (US 2021/0051335, hereafter Liao).
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.
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 – 14, 16 – 18, and 20 - 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al (US 2020/0221108, hereafter Xu) in view of LeLeannec et al (US 2022/0078488, hereafter Leleannec) in further view of Liao et al (US 2021/0051335, hereafter Liao).
As per claim 1, Xu discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, that the current video block is coded with a first prediction mode (¶ 87 and 95); and
performing the conversion according to the determining,
wherein in the first prediction mode, a first motion information for a first geometric partition of the current video block and a second motion information for a second geometric partition of the current video block is determined and a weighting process for generating a final prediction for samples within a weighted area of the current video block is applied based on a weighted sum of prediction samples derived based on the first motion information and the second motion information ( ¶ 161 and 162); and
wherein at least one first flag is signaled in the bitstream to indicate whether to refine the at least one motion vector of the first motion information for the first geometric partition and the second motion information for the second geometric partition (¶ 120 and 121).
However, Xu does not explicitly teach wherein at least one motion vector of the first motion information for the first geometric partition and the second motion information for the second geometric partition is refined by adding at least one motion vector difference respectively (¶ 121).
In the same field of endeavor, Leleannec discloses wherein at least one motion vector of the first motion information for the first geometric partition and the second motion information for the second geometric partition is refined by adding at least one motion vector difference respectively (¶ 196; in case to MVDs are coded, one for each partition, the second MVD is coded in a conditional way based on the relative values of the motion vectors of the first and second partition. For instance, the second MVD may be restricted so that the second refine MV is not to close to the refined MV of the first triangular partition. ).
However, Xu or Leleannec does not explicitly teach partitioned by the geometric merge mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Liao teaches partitioned by the geometric merge mode (¶ 146 and 346).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Xu in view Leleannec in further view of Liao. The advantage is an improved video coding system.
As per claim 3, Xu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein each of the at least one first flag corresponds to one motion vector difference (¶ 121).
As per claim 4, Xu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein whether to derive the motion vector difference is based on the value of the first flag (¶ 121).
As per claim 5, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the motion vector difference is derived based on a step information indicating an absolute value and a direction information indicating a direction of the motion information difference (¶Table 1 and Table 2; ¶ 123 - 124).
As per claim 6, Xu discloses the method of claim 5, wherein whether the step information and the direction information are included in the bitstream is based on a value of a first flag indicating whether to refine the motion vector by adding the motion vector difference (¶ 121).
As per claim 7, Xu discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the step information and the direction information are included in the bitstream when the value of the first flag is not equal to zero (¶Table 1 and Table 2; ¶ 123 - 124).
As per claim 8, Xu discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the absolute value is determined according to a table indicating correspondence relationship between pieces of step information and absolute values and the step information of the current video block (¶Table 1 and Table 2; ¶ 123 - 124).
As per claim 9, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first prediction mode includes multiple partition schemes and at least one partition scheme divides the current video block into two or more partitions, at least one of which is non-square and non-rectangular (Figure 18).
As per claim 10, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the geometric partitioning comprises a triangular partitioning mode (¶ 106).
As per claim 11, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the geometric partitioning comprises a geometric merge mode (¶ 177).
As per claim 12, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (¶ 87).
As per claim 13, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (¶ 95).
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 9 are applicable for claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 17 are applicable for claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 22 are applicable for claim 25.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487