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 with respect to claim(s) 40-42,47-55 and 57-60 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any citations of the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 40-42,47-55 and 57-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. No support can be found in the specification that at least one zero motion candidate in the merge candidate list is not reordered. In [0421], the specification discloses that the zero padding affine candidates are not reordered, however, zero motion candidates are not zero padding affine candidates.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 40-42, 47-49, 57-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by PARK et al. (US 20210037238 A1).
Regarding claims 40, 58-59. PARK discloses A method for video processing (figure 1, figure 2), comprising:
constructing a merge candidate list for a target block of a video ([0082] The predictor (230) may construct a merge candidate list using motion information of available neighboring blocks and use information indicated by a merge index on the merge candidate list as a motion vector of the current block);
reordering the merge candidate list for the target block ([0092] there may be provided a method of reordering the merge candidate list in order to construct a merge candidate list effectively) based on a reordering scheme, the reordering scheme indicating that at least one zero motion candidate in the merge candidate list is not reordered ([0189] a zero vector may be added to the modified merge candidate list as the merge candidate; [0258] in a case where the number of the merge candidates of the modified merge candidate list is less than the maximum merge candidate number, the merge candidate representing a zero vector may be added to the modified merge candidate list; [0287] in a case where the number of the merge candidates of the modified merge candidate list is less than the maximum merge candidate number, the merge candidate representing a zero vector may be added to the modified merge candidate list (not reordered)); and
performing a conversion between the target block and a bitstream of the video based on the reordered list ([0267] the decoding device may obtain information on the inter-prediction of the current block through the bitstream (inherently include the reordered list information); [0288] the decoding device may obtain, through the bitstream, a merge index which indicates one merge candidate among the merge candidates included in the modified merge candidate list; [103] the modified merge candidate list may be derived through the reordering and the refinement of merge candidates of the current block),
wherein the merge candidate list is constructed in a template matching (TM) merge mode (figure 4, [0095] The encoding device/decoding device may calculate the cost for the merge candidate of the merge candidate list (S310). In one example, the cost may be calculated based on a template. That is, the cost may be derived through a template matching method; [0100] The encoding device/decoding device may reorder the merge candidates of the merge candidate list based on the costs for the merge candidates (S320)).
Regarding claim 41. PARK discloses The method of claim 40, wherein reordering the merge candidate list comprises:
applying a TM refinement process on merge candidates in the merge candidate list to obtain a refined merge candidate list ([0101] The encoding device/decoding device may derive a refine merge candidate for the reordered merge candidate of the merge candidate list (S330). Specifically, the encoding device/decoding device may derive a template which has a small cost with the template of the current block, from among templates of the reference blocks included in any neighboring region of the candidate block which the reordered merge candidate indicates); and
reordering at least a part of merge candidates in the refined merge candidate list ([0101] The encoding device/decoding device may cause the order of the refine merge candidate to come before the order of the reordered merge candidate. That is, the encoding device/decoding device may allocate a value that is less than a value of an index for the reordered merge candidate to a value of an index for the refine merge candidate).
Regarding claim 42. PARK discloses The method of claim 40, wherein the merge candidate list is reordered in a first reordering scheme, the first reordering scheme being different from a second reordering scheme for a further merge candidate list for the target block in a merge mode other than the TM merge mode, or
wherein reordering the merge candidate list comprises: reordering at least a part of merge candidates in the merge candidate list before a TM refinement process ([0101] The encoding device/decoding device may derive a refine merge candidate for the reordered merge candidate of the merge candidate list (S330)).
Regarding claim 47. PARK discloses The method of claim 40, wherein reordering the merge candidate list comprises:
selecting, from the merge candidate list, merge candidates to be reordered; and
reordering the selected merge candidates (figure 6).
Regarding claim 48. PARK discloses The method of claim 47, wherein the merge candidates to be reordered comprise at least one of:
adjacent spatial and temporal merge candidates (abstract, forming a merge candidate list based on neighbouring blocks of a current block; wherein the neighbouring blocks include spatial neighbouring blocks and temporal neighbouring blocks);
adjacent spatial, spatial temporal motion vector prediction (STMVP), and temporal merge candidates;
adjacent spatial, STMVP, temporal and non-adjacent spatial merge candidates;
adjacent spatial, STMVP, temporal, non-adjacent spatial and history-based motion vector prediction (HMVP) merge candidates;
adjacent spatial, STMVP, temporal, non-adjacent spatial, HMVP and pair-wise average merge candidates;
adjacent spatial, temporal, HMVP and pair-wise average merge candidates;
adjacent spatial, temporal, and HMVP merge candidates; or
adjacent spatial merge candidates, or
wherein the merge candidates to be reordered exclude at least one of:
uni-prediction subblock based merge candidates;
subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction (SbTMVP) merge candidates;
inherited affine merge candidates;
constructed affine merge candidates; or
zero padding affine merge candidates, or
wherein the merge candidates to be reordered comprise the first Q merge candidates in the list, Q being a positive integer.
Regarding claim 49. PARK discloses The method of claim 47, wherein orders of merge candidates other than the selected merge candidates are remained in the list (figure 6), or
wherein merge candidates other than the selected merge candidates are arranged behind or before the selected merge candidates in the list.
Regarding claim 57. PARK discloses The method of claim 40, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream or decoding the video from the bitstream ([0267] the decoding device may obtain information on the inter-prediction of the current block through the bitstream; [0288] the decoding device may obtain, through the bitstream, a merge index which indicates one merge candidate among the merge candidates included in the modified merge candidate list; [0068] When a bitstream including video information is input, the video decoding device (200) may reconstruct a video in relation to a process by which video information is processed in the video encoding device).
Regarding claim 60. (New) PARK discloses The method of claim 40, further comprising: storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium ([0261], [0262] The bitstream may be transmitted to the decoding device through a network or a storage medium; [0298] a bitstream generated by the encoding method may be stored in a computer-readable recording medium).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 50-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 20210037238 A1) in view of ZHANG et al. (US 20220239899 A1).
Regarding claim 50. ZHANG discloses The method of claim 40, wherein reordering the merge candidate list comprises:
dividing the merge candidate list into one or more subgroups of merge candidates ([0144] the merge candidate list is divided into multiple subgroups); and
reordering at least one subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates ([0144] the candidates in each subgroup are to be reordered based on a template matching cost for each candidate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of PARK and ZHANG, to divide the merge candidate list into one or more subgroups of merge candidates and reordering at least one subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates, in order to improve the encoding of the index (ZHANG [0144]).
Regarding claim 51. ZHANG discloses The method of claim 50, wherein the least one subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates comprises the first subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates ([0144] the merge candidate list is divided into multiple subgroups, the candidates in each subgroup are to be reordered based on a template matching cost for each candidate) or,
wherein the least one subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates excludes the last subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates.
The same motivation has been stated in claim 50.
Regarding claim 52. ZHANG discloses The method of claim 51, wherein
the one or more subgroups of merge candidates comprise a plurality of subgroups of merge candidates ([0144] the merge candidate list is divided into multiple subgroups), and
the at least one subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates to be reordered comprise at least a first subgroup of merge candidates and a different second subgroup of merge candidates ([0144] the candidates in each subgroup are to be reordered based on a template matching cost for each candidate).
The same motivation has been stated in claim 50.
Regarding claim 53. ZHANG discloses The method of claim 52, wherein reordering the at least one subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates comprises:
reordering the first and second subgroups of merge candidates separately ([0144] the candidates in each subgroup are to be reordered based on a template matching cost for each candidate).
The same motivation has been stated in claim 50.
Regarding claim 54. ZHANG discloses The method of claim 53, wherein reordering the first and second subgroups of merge candidates separately comprises:
reordering the first subgroup of merge candidates without considering the second subgroup of merge candidates ([0144] the candidates in each subgroup are to be reordered based on a template matching cost for each candidate (inherently disclosed)).
The same motivation has been stated in claim 50.
Regarding claim 55. ZHANG discloses The method of claim 53, wherein the first and second subgroups of merge candidates are reordered separately while remaining the order of the first and second subgroups ([0144] the candidates in each subgroup are to be reordered based on a template matching cost for each candidate (inherently disclosed)).
The same motivation has been stated in claim 50.
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 XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-5pm.
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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488