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 filed July 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Chen fails to teach “wherein at least one predictor candidate of the set of predictor candidates is based on a temporal neighboring block that has been encoded” (Remarks of July 9, 2025, page 7). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen discloses elements of the merge mode as it relates to the claimed invention. Chen discloses that the merge mode consists of 5 candidates. Further, Chen discloses that in merge mode the candidates are derived from both spatial and temporal neighboring blocks (column 12 lines 32 - 51).
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 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 10,681,370, hereafter Chen) in view of Zou et al (US 10,560,712, hereafter Zou).
As per claim 1, Chen discloses a method for video encoding, comprising:
accessing, for a block being encoded in a picture, a set of predictor candidates having multiple predictor candidates, wherein each predictor candidate of the set of predictor candidates corresponds to a least a neighboring block that has been encoded, wherein at least one predictor candidate of the set of predictor candidates is based on a temporal neighboring block that has been encoded (column 12 lines 46 – 51), and wherein said block is encoded in an affine merge mode (column 16 lines 26 – 27 and column 17 lines 5 - 11);
selecting a predictor candidate from the set of predictor candidates (column 24 lines 54 – column 25 lines 8);
obtaining, using a plurality of motion vectors associated with the selected predictor candidate from the set of predictor candidates, a set of control point motion vectors for the block (column 16 lines 26 – 27 and column 17 lines 5 - 11);
obtaining, based on the set of control point motion vectors, a motion field based on a motion model, wherein the motion field identifies motion vectors used for prediction of all sub-blocks of the block being encoded (column 16 lines 26 – 27 and column 17 lines 5 - 11);
encoding the block based on the motion field (column 16 lines 26 - 27).
However, Chen does not explicitly teach encoding an index for the selected predictor candidate from the set of predictor candidates.
In the same field of endeavor, Zou teaches encoding an index for the selected predictor candidate from the set of predictor candidates (column 23 lines 55 - 57).
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 Chen in view of Zou. The advantage is an improved affine merge mode.
As per claim 2, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the motion model is an affine model (column 16 lines 26 - 27).
As per claim 3, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of control point motion vectors for the block are stored separately from the motion vectors of the motion field for the block (column 15 lines 36 - 47).
As per claim 4, Chen discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the stored motion vectors of the motion field are for motion compensation of the block (column 15 lines 36 - 47).
As per claim 5, Chen discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising: accessing a second set of control point motion vectors for the selected predictor candidate, wherein the second set of control point motion vectors are stored separately from motion vectors of all sub-blocks of the selected predictor candidate, wherein the set of control point motion vectors for the block are obtained responsive to the second set of control point motion vectors for the selected predictor candidate, and wherein the motion vectors of all sub-blocks of the selected predictor candidate are for motion compensation of the selected predictor candidate (column 15 lines 5 – column 16 lines 58).
Regarding claim 6, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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