DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a response to an amendment filed on 10/30/2025, in which claims 42-61 are pending and ready for examination.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in this application and a copy has been placed of record in the file.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 42-61 have been 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.
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.
.
Claims 42-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2020/0413040 A1) in view of Zhang (US 2022/0295088 A1).
Regarding claim 42, Lim discloses: A method for video processing, comprising:
determining motion information for a video block of a video by conducting a refinement process on at least one of a first merge candidate or a second merge candidate for the video block (see Fig. 12, Fig. 22, and paragraph 240 and 275, derivation of a spatial merge candidate, a temporal merge candidate, and an additional merge candidate), the second merge candidate being generated based on the first merge candidate (see paragraph 255, scaling the motion vector based on at least one of the distance between the current picture and the reference picture of the current block and the distance between the co-located picture and the reference picture of the co-located block); and
performing a conversion between the video block and a bitstream of the video based on the motion information (see Fig. 12, Fig. 22, generating a prediction block).
Lim does not explicitly disclose: wherein the video block is a geometric partition mode (GPM) coded block.
However, Zhang from the same or similar endeavor discloses: wherein the video block is a geometric partition mode (GPM) coded block (see Zhang, paragraph 95, 112, and 114, signaling the index indicating the partition mode and the two merge indices).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have “a video block that is a geometric partition mode (GPM) coded block” as taught by Zhang in the video coding method and apparatus taught by Lim to increase compression efficiency of video coding by not signaling but deriving the motion information of a video block at the video decoder (see Zhang, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein determining motion information for a video block comprises:
constructing a merge candidate list for the video block, the merge candidate list comprising at least the second merge candidate generated based on the refinement process conducted on the first merge candidate (see Lim, paragraph 406, refinement applied to a merge candidate); and
determining the motion information based on the merge candidate list (see Lim, Fig. 12, Fig. 22, generating a prediction block).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 43, wherein determining the motion information based on the motion information comprises: conducting a further refinement process on the second merge candidate to determine the motion information (see Lim, paragraph 406, refinement applied to a merge candidate); or
wherein the refinement process comprises refining at least one of: L0 motion information of the first merge candidate; and L1 motion information of the first merge candidate (see Lim, paragraph 417-418 and 430); or
wherein the first merge candidate comprises a bi-prediction merge candidate or a uni-prediction merge candidate (see Lim, paragraph 363-364); or
wherein the refinement process is enabled if the first merge candidate satisfies a condition associated with a corresponding refinement method (see Lim, paragraph 611).
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein determining motion information for a video block comprises:
constructing a merge candidate list for the video block, the merge candidate list comprising at least the second merge candidate generated based on the first merge candidate (see Lim, paragraph 406, refinement applied to a merge candidate. Also see paragraph 255); and
conducting the refinement process on the second merge candidate to determine the motion information for the video block (see Lim, Fig. 12, Fig. 22, generating a prediction block).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein the video block comprises at least two parts, and wherein the refinement process comprises motion refinement processes simultaneously conducted for the at least two parts (see Lim, paragraph 400); or
wherein the video block comprises at least two parts, and wherein the refinement process comprises motion refinement processes conducted for the at least two parts respectively (see Lim, paragraph 400); or
wherein the video block comprises at least two parts, and wherein the refinement process is applied to one or more parts of the at least two parts (see Lim, paragraph 400).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 46, wherein the at least one or more parts are predefined or selected according to a rule (see Lim, paragraph 395).
Regarding claim 48, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein the refinement process is based on bilateral matching (see Lim, paragraph 412).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 48, wherein the video block comprises a geometric partition mode (GPM) block (see Zhang, paragraph 95, 112, and 114), and L0 and/or L1 prediction in the bilateral matching of the GPM block is irrelevant to a GPM split mode of the GPM block (see Lim, paragraph 399 and 413); or
wherein the video block comprises a GPM block (see Zhang, paragraph 95, 112, and 114), and the L0 and/or L1 prediction in the bilateral matching of the GPM block is based on a GPM split mode of the GPM block (see Lim, paragraph 395, 399, and 413).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein the refinement process is based on based on template matching (see Lim, paragraph 400 and 412).
Regarding claim 51, Lim discloses: The method of Claim 50, wherein a template used in the template matching is uni-directional or bi-directional (see Lim, paragraph 400 and 412); or
wherein the video block comprises at least two parts, and templates for different parts are determined based on different rules (see Lim, paragraph 400, two sub-blocks); or
wherein the template matching is applied to the whole video block for determining partial motion information associated with one part of the video block (see Lim, paragraph 400); or
wherein the video block comprises at least two parts, and the template matching is applied to a target part of the at least two parts (see Lim, paragraph 400).
Regarding claim 52, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 51, wherein a shape of a template for the target part is determined based on a shape of the target part (see Lim, paragraph 395).
Regarding claim 53, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein whether the refinement process is based on bilateral matching or template matching is determined based on first motion information of the first merge candidate (see Lim, paragraph 413); or
wherein the refinement process is enabled if the video block is coded in GPM mode (see Lim, paragraph 68, and Zhang, paragraph 95, 112, and 114); or
wherein the bitstream comprises a flag indicating whether the refinement process is enabled (see Lim, paragraph 412);
wherein at least one of the first or second merge candidate is used for subblock based motion vector storage for the video block (see Lim, paragraph 412); or
wherein the first or second motion candidate is used for deblocking strength determination for the video block (see Lim, paragraph 124); or
wherein the method further comprises:
performing motion compensation for the video block based on the first merge candidate or the second merge candidate (see Lim, Fig. 22); or
wherein the video block comprises a first video block (see Lim, Fig. 22), and the method further comprises:
generating an advanced motion vector predication (AMVP) candidate list or a merge candidate list for a second video block of the video based on the motion information (see Lim, paragraph 404-406).
Regarding claim 54, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 53, wherein the motion information is further used as:
a temporal motion vector candidate if the first video block is a temporal neighbor block of the second video block (see Lim, paragraph 190), or
a spatial motion vector candidate if the first video block is a spatial neighbor block of the second video block (see Lim, paragraph 190).
Regarding claim 55, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein the video block comprises a first video block, and the method further comprises:
generating an AMVP candidate list or a merge candidate list for a second video block of the video block based on the first merge candidate for the first video block (see Lim, paragraph 404-406).
Regarding claim 56, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein the video block is coded in geometric prediction mode with motion vector differences (GMVD) mode (see Zhang, paragraph 95, 112, and 114), and the method further comprises:
adding a motion vector difference (MVD) to the motion information (see Zhang, paragraph 95-96).
Regarding claim 57, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein the video block is coded in GMVD mode (see Zhang, paragraph 95, 112, and 114) and the motion information comprises first motion information (see Lim, paragraph 259), and wherein determining motion information for a video block comprises:
adding a MVD to second motion information of the first merge candidate to derive third motion information (see Lim, paragraph 187), and
determining the first motion information by refining the third motion information (see Lim, paragraph 187).
Regarding claim 58, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein the motion information is associated with a target coding mode, and the target coding mode comprises at least one of:
geometric merge mode (GEO) (see Zhang, paragraph 95, 112, and 114),
geometric partition mode (GPM) (see Zhang, paragraph 95, 112, and 114),
wedge prediction mode,
triangular prediction mode (TPM) (see Lim, paragraph 68),
geometric prediction mode with motion vector differences (GMVD) (see Lim, paragraph 68), or
a GPM block with motion refinement (see Zhang, paragraph 95, 112, and 114); or
wherein the refinement process comprises at least one of:
a decoder side motion vector refinement (DVMR) process (see Lim, paragraph 410),
a frame-rate up conversion (FRUC) refinement process,
a template matching (TM) refinement process (see Lim, paragraph 400),
a merge mode with motion vector differences (MMVD) refinement process (see Lim, paragraph 522), or
a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) refinement process (see Lim, paragraph 625).
Regarding claim 59, the combination of Lim and Zhang discloses: The method of Claim 42, wherein the conversion comprises:
decoding the video block from the bitstream; or encoding the video block into the bitstream (see Lim, Fig. 7 and Fig. 8).
Regarding claims 60 and 61, claims 60 and 61 are drawn to an apparatus and a computer readable storage medium having limitations similar to the method claimed in claim 1 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, apparatus and computer readable storage medium claims 60 and 61 correspond to method claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 MARYAM A NASRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7158. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-8:00 M-T.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/MARYAM A NASRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483