DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 03/06/2026 as a Request for Continued Examination on 04/09/2026.
In the filed response, independent claims 1, 4, and 7-8 have been amended.
Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10 have been examined and are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/09/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/25/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been carefully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see examiner’s responses below.
4. Based on updated searches, new prior art Ikai et al. US 2019/0037231 A1 (with reference to Foreign Application Priority Data JP 2016-016557 in PCT/JP2017/000638), hereinafter referred to as Ikai (PTO 892), is introduced to address the new limitation “derive a motion vector of at least one subblock of the current block based on the at least two control points of the current block” in the independent claims. Ikai, in particular, shows a motion vector (MV) for each sub-block of a block can be derived from two control points V0 and V1 as shown in fig. 21. Corresponding support can also be found in fig. 21 of the priority documentation (please see attached). For this reason, the examiner respectfully submits that prior art Zou, Ikai, and Kondo, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest all of the disclosed features of the instant claims given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). It is further noted that Ikai discloses a pu_affine_enable_flag which can be decoded depending on whether the merge_flag is set to enable or disable the merge mode (e.g. ¶0390). Also noteworthy is the work of Chuang et al. WO 2017/118409 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Chuang, where fig 4B also describes the aforementioned limitation. Further, Chuang also shows that while the upper-left and upper-right corners are used for control points, the other two control points may also be used which includes the lower-left and lower-right corners (¶0021). Similar to Zou, Chuang also refers to signaling an affine flag when the CU size is equal to or larger than 16x16 (¶0022). For the purposes of this office action, the work of Ikai is relied on, however, Chuang is also relevant.
5. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
6. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-10 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 7, and 8, they recite obtaining or generating an affine flag based on the condition “that a width and a height of the current block is equal to or larger than 16”. For e.g., Fig. 15 and table 1 (¶0206) of the specification appear to address this feature, however, in the examples provided, there is no ‘equal to’ condition. In other words, it seems the AF mode is true only when the width and the height are greater than 16. If on the other hand it is false (i.e. the width and height are not greater than 16), this indicates coding is performed according to a coding mode other than AF mode, which seems to align with claims 9 and 10. However, not being greater than 16, also includes being equal to 16; hence, it seems the coding mode other than the AF mode can be implemented not only when the width and height are smaller than 16 but also equal to 16. Thus, for these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, claims 9 and 10 depend on claims 1 and 4, respectively, and therefore include all of their features. For the reasons given above, claims 9-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al. US 2017/0332095 A1, in view of Ikai et al. US 2019/0037231 A1 (with reference to Foreign Application Priority Data JP 2016-016557 in PCT/JP2017/000638 – see attached), and in further view of Kondo US 2019/0335191 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zou, Ikai, and Kondo, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Zou discloses and/or suggests “An apparatus for decoding a video signal including a current block based on an affine motion prediction mode (AF mode), [See abstract and decoder 30 in fig. 3] comprising: a processor configured to: obtain a merge flag from the video signal, wherein the merge flag represents whether a merge mode is applied to the current block [See for e.g. ¶0100. Although a ‘merge flag’ is not explicit in Zou, Zou discusses the merge mode at the decoder side. Please see Kondo for explicit support regarding said flag], based on that the merge mode not applied to the current block [See for e.g. ¶0100. The decoder can use the merge mode and/or the affine mode. If the affine mode is indicated at the decoder (1402 of fig. 14), this implies the merge mode will not be applied. Please see Kondo for more explicit support regarding flags], obtain an affine flag from the video signal based on that a width and a height of the current block is equal to or larger than 16 [See ¶0110 where the AF_INTER mode may be applied to a block with a size ≥ 16x16 via signaling an affine flag. Also note ¶0130 regarding applying an affine model based on block size], wherein the affine flag represents whether the AF mode is applied to the current block [Said affine flag identifies whether the affine mode is used for the current block or not. See for e.g. ¶0117], and the AF mode represents a motion prediction mode using an affine motion model [With respect to the affine mode, see ¶0122 of Zou regarding a flag for indicating whether a four-parameter or a six-parameter affine motion model is used], obtain an affine parameter flag representing whether 4 parameters or 6 parameters are used for the affine motion model based on that the AF mode is applied to the current block [In ¶0122, the flag is analogous to the claimed affine parameter flag to indicate whether a four-parameter or a six-parameter affine motion model is used], obtain a motion vector predictor based on the 4 parameters or the 6 parameters being used for the affine motion model [See for e.g. ¶0125-¶0127 regarding a predictor block(s) based on the 4 or 6-parameter affine motion models. Also note 1406 of fig. 14 regarding predictors derived from motion vectors of the selected affine motion model], wherein obtaining the motion vector predictor based on the 4 parameters or the 6 parameters being used for the affine motion model [See citations above with respect to the affine motion models of Zou] comprises: determining at least two control points of the current block [Given the limitation “at least two control points” please refer to figs. 5 and 8 of Zou which illustrate the 4 and 6-parameter affine motion models, respectively], wherein the at least two control points [Figs. 5 and 8 and associated text] comprise at least two of a left top corner pixel, a right top corner pixel, a left bottom corner pixel, and a right bottom corner pixel [Since the limitation only requires having at least two of the claimed corner pixel locations, motion vectors v0 and v1 and motion vectors v0 , v1, and v2 correspond to the at least two control points for the four-parameter and the six-parameter affine motion models, respectively. Please see figs. 5 and 8, and corresponding text. Zou refers to these as control points motion vectors (CPMVs). Further descriptions deemed relevant may also be found in ¶0031, ¶0037-¶0040, and ¶0132], obtaining the motion vector predictor based on the 4 parameters corresponds to two control points [Motion vector predictors corresponding to the two control points vo and v1 (fig. 5), corresponding to the 4-parameter affine model, may be obtained from the motion vectors of the neighboring blocks to said control points (e.g. fig. 6 with reference to ¶0110)], and obtaining the motion vector predictor based on the 6 parameters corresponds to three control points [¶0132 further shows when the six-parameter affine model is used (fig. 8), three motion vector predictors are generated from neighboring motion vectors that correspond to the three motion vectors (i.e. control point motion vectors – CPMVs) of the current block, as illustrated], derive a motion vector of at least one subblock of the current block based on the at least two control points of the current block,[Zou however does not address the foregoing limitation. Please refer to Ikai below for support] obtain prediction samples for the current block based on the motion vector predictor [1406 of fig. 14 shows that values of predictors derived from motion vectors of a selected affine motion model can be obtained], obtain residual samples for the current block [Note fig. 14 regarding a decoded representation of differences, i.e. residual], reconstruct the current block based on the prediction samples and the residual samples [Note fig. 14 regarding reconstructing the current block], and filter the reconstructed current block [A deblocking filter may be included to filter block boundaries to remove block artifacts from reconstructed video (e.g. ¶0082)], wherein the affine flag and the affine parameter flag are obtained based on that the merge flag represents the merge mode is not applied to the current block.” [Although not “explicit” in Zou, it is within the level of skill in the art that if a decoder decodes an indication indicating the current block is encoded using affine motion prediction (see 1402 fig. 14), this would mean Zou’s affine flag (e.g. ¶0110, ¶0117) and affine parameter flag (¶0122, ¶0124) are both used, thus implying the merge mode is not applied (i.e. current block is neither skip nor merge mode). Please see Kondo below regarding the merge flag] Although Zou’s teachings are deemed relevant, they do not appear to address the newly added limitation “derive a motion vector of at least one subblock of the current block based on the at least two control points of the current block”. Ikai on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest the foregoing feature. [See fig. 21 which shows a MV for each sub-block can be derived from control points V0 and V1, i.e. based on at least two control points of the current block. The same fig. 21 also appears in the priority documentation] Given the teachings of Ikai above, 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 video coding schemes of Zou for affine motion prediction, with the methodology of Ikai as above for deriving with high precision a motion vector of a control point for deriving a motion vector of a target block and a sub-block; hence, a prediction image with higher precision can be generated thereby improving coding efficiencies (e.g. ¶0023). Although Zou and Ikai are found to teach and/or suggest most of the features above, the work of Kondo from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to provide more explicit support for the following limitations: “a processor configured to obtain a merge flag from the video signal, wherein the merge flag represents whether merge mode is applied to the current block [Note the merge flag in figs. 16 and 23 for either applying or not applying the merge mode to the current block], based on that the merge mode not applied to the current block [Merge flag is not equal to 1, i.e. merge mode not applied], obtain an affine flag [Affine flag is equal to 1] from the video signal based on that a width and a height of the current block is equal to or larger than 16” [Kondo does not specify the size condition ≥ 16. Please see Zou above for corresponding support] Given the teachings of Kondo above, 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 video coding schemes of Zou for affine motion prediction alongside the coding techniques of Ikai, with the methodology of Kondo as above which provides the logical flow for coding processing that enables a predicted image to be generated with high accuracy (e.g. ¶0013).
Regarding claim 2, Zou, Ikai, and Kondo teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zou further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the affine flag and the affine parameter flag are defined in a level of a coding unit.” [Note ¶0110 where the affine flag may be signaled in CU/PU level. Also please refer to ¶0122 where the flag for indicating whether the four-parameter or six-parameter motion model is used can be introduced in the CU level]
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the apparatus for decoding of Claim 1, since encoding and decoding are inverse processes that enable compressed video data to be reconstructed for viewing at a destination device. Please see the hardware layout of encoder 20 and decoder 30 in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively, of Zou. Also note Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the apparatus of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the apparatus for decoding of Claim 1, since encoding and decoding are inverse processes that enable compressed video data to be reconstructed for viewing at a destination device. Please see the hardware layout of encoder 20 and decoder 30 in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively, of Zou. Also note Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the apparatus for decoding of Claim 1, since encoding and decoding are inverse processes that enable compressed video data to be reconstructed for viewing at a destination device. Please see the hardware layout of encoder 20 and decoder 30 in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively, of Zou. Also note the transmission of encoded video data to destination device 14 via communication medium 16 in Fig. 1 (¶0044).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. After further consideration of prior art Wang, Wang does not appear to explicitly address the limitation “wherein the current block is decoded based on a coding mode other than the AF mode based on that the width and the height of the current block is smaller than 16” when considering the claims as a whole. Although ¶0085 and ¶0088-¶0090 describe a block being restricted to uni-directional inter prediction based on the merge mode when a size characteristic (e.g. width and height) of said block is less than a threshold (e.g. 1st and 2nd thresholds, respectively), Wang is silent with respect to the AF mode. However, please note that the rejection of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) must first be addressed. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
9. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the current block is decoded based on a coding mode other than the AF mode based on that the width and the height of the current block is smaller than 16.
10. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the current block is encoded based on a coding mode other than the AF mode based on that the width and the height of the current block is smaller than 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights