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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 2, 2026 has been entered.
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, 5 – 10, 22 – 29, 31, 33, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salehifar et al (US 2024/0244223, hereafter Salehifar) in view of Kim et al (US 2024/0406436, hereafter Kim).
As per claim 1, Salehifar discloses a method of video processing in a decoder, comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a current block in a current picture (¶ 69 and 70);
obtaining prediction information from the video bitstream, the prediction information indicating that the current block is predicted in an inter prediction mode that is a merge mode (¶ 70 and 80);
determining a merge candidate from a merge candidate list (¶ 80);
determining an inter prediction direction based on at least one syntax element, the inter prediction direction being one of a first uni-prediction from a first reference picture list, a second uni-prediction from a second reference picture list, and a bi-prediction from the first reference picture list and the second reference picture list (¶ 103, 104, and 115);
determining a motion vector for a prediction of the current block based on the merge candidate (¶ 103, 104,115, and 117); and
reconstructing the current block based on the inter prediction direction and the motion vector (¶ 75).
However, Salehifar does not explicitly teach the at least one syntax element that specifies the inter prediction direction for the current block being signaled separately from a first index indicating the merge candidate in the video bitstream, the current block being predicted in the merge mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches the at least one syntax element that specifies the inter prediction direction for the current block being signaled separately from the merge candidate in the video bitstream, the current block being predicted in the merge mode (¶ 596 and 1058).
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 Salehifar in view of Kim. The advantage is an improvement in video coding.
As per claim 3, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the video bitstream complies with enhanced compression model (ECM) (¶ 77; the next generation video coding standard like beyond VVC exploration such as ECM).
As per claim 5, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more signals comprises a syntax with: a first value indicating a uni-prediction and a second value indicating the bi-prediction (¶ 102 - 105).
As per claim 6, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one syntax element is a syntax element, and a first value of the syntax element indicates the first uni-prediction, a second value of the syntax element indicates the second uni- prediction, and a third value of the syntax element indicates bi-prediction (¶ 102 - 105).
As per claim 7, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one syntax element comprises: a first flag indicating whether the first reference picture list is in the inter prediction direction; and a second flag indicating whether the second reference picture list is in the inter prediction direction (¶ 104 and 105).
As per claim 8, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the inter-prediction direction based on the at least one syntax element further comprises: when a high level syntax indicates of an allowance of the bi-prediction, determining the inter- prediction direction based on the at least one syntax element from the video bitstream (¶ 102 - 105).
As per claim 9, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the inter prediction direction is the bi-prediction, and the method further comprises:
decoding, from the video bitstream, an index that indicates a specific weighting candidate in a weighting candidate list, the weighting candidate list comprising a plurality of weighting candidates respectively providing weighting values for combining predictions from the first reference picture list and the second reference picture list (¶ 116 - 122).
As per claim 10, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the weighting candidate list comprises at least: a default equal weighting candidate and an inherited weighting candidate from the merge candidate (¶ 116 - ¶ 122).
As per claim 21, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the inter prediction mode is a merge mode (¶ 87).
As per claim 22, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the merge mode is one of a regular merge mode, a merge motion vector difference (MMVD) mode, an affine merge mode, an affine MMVD mode, and a merge with template matching (TM) refinement mode (¶ 87).
As per claim 23, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the at least one syntax element is signaled after the prediction information indicating that the current block is predicted in the merge mode (¶ 123 and 130).
As per claim 24, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 21,
wherein the at least one syntax element is signaled after the prediction information indicating a type of the merge mode (¶ 123 and 130).
Regarding claim 25, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 7 are applicable for claim 29.
Regarding claim 30, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 21 are applicable for claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 23 are applicable for claim 31.
As per claim 33, Salehifar discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the index is a BCW index (¶ 121).
Regarding claim 34, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 34.
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
Prosecution Insights