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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 37, 50, 55 and 56 have been amended. Claim 49 was previously cancelled. Accordingly, claims 37 - 48 and 50 - 58 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see pages 7 and 8 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al., (US 2021/0211705 A1) in view of CHEN et al., (US 2020/0068218 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered reference to wherein in accordance with that the one or more subgroups of merge candidates comprises a plurality of subgroups of merge candidates, the at least one subgroup excludes the last subgroup of the plurality of subgroups of merge candidates, as claimed in the amended Claims 37, 55 and 56.
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 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 of this title, 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 37 - 42, 47, 48 and 50 - 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al., (US 2021/0037238 A1) referred to as PARK hereinafter, in view of CHEN et al., (US 2020/0068218 A1) referred to as CHEN hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 37, PARK teaches a method for video processing (Fig. 3), comprising:
constructing a list of merge candidates (Par. [0094], Step 300, the encoding device/decoding device may construct a merge candidate list including merge candidates of the maximum candidate number through the existing merge candidate list construction method. For example, the maximum candidate number may be seven.) for a target block of a video in a coding mode (Par. [0051] The predictor (110) may perform prediction on a processing target block (hereinafter, a current block), and may generate a predicted block including prediction samples for the current block.) based on motion vector difference (MVD) (Par. [0086], The predictor of the encoding device may obtain a motion vector difference (MVD) between the motion vector of the current block and a motion vector predictor, encode the MVD and output the encoded MVD in the form of a bitstream. That is, the MVD can be obtained by subtracting the motion vector predictor from the motion vector of the current block.);
reordering the list of merge candidates for the target block (Par. [0340], Step 320, the encoding device/decoding device may reorder the merge candidates in an order from small to large costs of them. Alternatively, as another example, the encoding device/decoding device may reorder, so that the merge candidate having the smallest cost is first in an order); and
performing a conversion between the target block and a bitstream of the video based on the reordered list of merge candidates (Par. [0101] The encoding device/decoding device (i.e. conversion) may derive a refine merge candidate for the reordered merge candidate of the merge candidate list, where the refine merge candidate may be derived by refining a motion vector of the reordered merge candidate),
wherein reordering the list of merge candidates comprises:
the list of merge candidates into one or more subgroups (Par. [0109] a merge candidate for the current block, may be derived as in the following Table 1 (i.e. one or more subgroups)) of merge candidates (Table 1, Par. [0110] A1 represents motion information of a left neighboring block of the current block; B1, motion information of a top neighboring block of the current block; B0, motion information of a top-right neighboring block of the current block; A0, motion information of a bottom-left neighboring block of the current block; ATMVP, motion information of a co-located block which is indicated by motion information of a predetermined neighboring block of the current block; STMVP, motion information derived based on motion information of a spatial neighboring block and motion information of a temporal neighboring block of the current block; B2, motion information of a top-left neighboring block of the current block; TMVP, motion information of a temporal neighboring block of the current block; Combined, motion information derived by combining motion information of a neighboring block of the current block; and Zero, a motion vector with a zero value); and
reordering at least one subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates (Fig. 6, Par. [0106] the modified merge candidate list may be derived through the reordering and the refinement of merge candidates of the current block)), wherein in accordance with that the one or more subgroups of merge candidates comprises a plurality of subgroups of merge candidates (Table 1, Par. [0109] TABLE 1 A1 B1 B0 A0 ATMVP STMVP B2 TMVP Combined Zero (i.e. plurality of subgroups), the at least one subgroup excludes the last subgroup of the plurality of subgroups of merge candidates (In Fig. 6a and Fig. 6b, Merge candidate subgroup Combined bi-pred is last in the normal candidate list. It is excluded from the updated candidate list. Also, Fig. 11b, Par. [0174], the merge candidate last in order in the existing merge candidate list may be removed from among the merge candidates).
PARK does not explicitly teach dividing the list of merge candidates into one or more subgroups of merge candidates.
However, CHEN teaches dividing the list of merge candidates into one or more subgroups of merge candidates (Fig. 14, Step 1410, Par. [0138]-[0139] Group-Based Candidate Reordering, all candidates are categorized (i.e. dividing) into 4 candidate groups (i.e. one or more subgroups), where group 1 consists of candidate(s) corresponding to MV(s) of spatial neighbouring block(s), group 2 consists of candidate(s) corresponding to MV(s) of temporal neighbouring block(s), group 3 consists of all sub-PU candidates (e.g. Sub-PU TMVP, STMVP and Affine merge candidates), and group 4 consists of all other candidates); and
reordering at least one subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates (Step 1430, Par. [0142], With the total cost for each selected group determined, the candidate groups can be reordered. Par. [0143] reorder better candidate group (i.e., a lower cost candidate group) to be front of worse candidate group (i.e., a higher cost candidate group)).
References PARK and CHEN are considered to be analogous art because they relate to merge candidate lists. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying reordering the merge candidates by diving the list into group types as taught by CHEN in the invention of PARK in order to improve the coding efficiency (See CHEN, Par. [0139]).
Regarding Claim 38, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 37. CHEN further teaches wherein the list of the merge candidates is reordered in a first reordering scheme mode (Fig. 14, Par. [0143], In step 1420, feature candidates (i.e. reordering scheme mode) for each group within MG_S selected groups are selected to get the estimated cost), the first reordering scheme being different from a second reordering scheme for a different list of merge candidates for the target block in a different coding mode (Par. [0143] It can reorder better candidate group (i.e., a lower cost candidate group) (i.e. first reordering scheme mode) to be front of worse candidate group (i.e., a higher cost candidate group) (i.e. second reordering scheme mode is different)); or the coding mode comprises a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) or a geometric prediction mode with motion vector difference (GMVD).
References PARK and CHEN are considered to be analogous art because they relate to merge candidate lists. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying reordering the subgroups of merge candidates as taught by CHEN in the invention of PARK in order to improve the coding efficiency (See CHEN, Par. [0139]).
Regarding Claim 39, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 38. PARK further teaches the list of merge candidates is to derive a list of base merge candidates (Fig. 6a, normal candidate list (i.e. base merge candidates)).
Regarding Claim 40, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 39. PARK further teaches the list of merge candidates is reordered before merge candidates in the list are refined by a signaled or derived MVD (Fig. 3, after reordering merge step 320 before refine Step. 330, Par. [0101], the refine merge candidate may be derived by refining a motion vector of the reordered merge candidate).
Regarding Claim 41, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 38. PARK in view of CHEN wherein the coding mode comprises the MMVD, and the list of merge candidates is reordered after MMVD refinement; or the coding mode comprises the GMVD, and the list of merge candidates is reordered after GMVD refinement (MMVD or GMVD is not required and does not further limit claim 38 because the first alternative is being met in claim 38, as recited by the term “or”.).
Regarding Claim 42, PARK in view of CHEN teaches claim 41. PARK further teaches the list of merge candidates is reordered after merge candidates in the list are refined by a signaled or derived MVD (Par. [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).
Regarding Claim 47, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 37. PARK further teaches wherein reordering the list of merge candidates comprises: selecting, from the list of merge candidates, merge candidates to be reordered (Step 300, Par. [0094], the encoding device/decoding device may construct a merge candidate list including merge candidates of the maximum candidate number. For example, the maximum candidate number may be seven); and reordering the selected merge candidates (Par. [0102], in a case where seven merge candidates are derived, and one refine merge candidate is derived, the encoding device/decoding device may select the seven candidates from among the eight candidates, and derive a modified merge candidate list based on the seven candidates. Further, the encoding device may signal information on the selected candidates).
Regarding Claim 48, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 47. PARK further teaches wherein the merge candidates to be reordered comprise a first N merge candidates in the list, N being a positive integer (Par. [0159] among the spatial neighboring blocks A1, B1, B0, A0, and B2, the A1 and the B1 (i.e. first N merge candidates is A0 and A1, two AN merge candidates)) may be located within the template, and the probability that they are selected for deriving a merge candidate or refine merge candidate which is reordered as a merge index of a small value may become high)); or orders of merge candidates other than the selected merge candidates are remained in the list; or merge candidates other than the selected merge candidates are arranged behind or before the selected merge candidates in the list.
Regarding Claim 49, it has been cancelled.
Regarding Claim 50, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 37. CHEN further teaches wherein the at least one subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates comprise a first subgroup of the one or more subgroups of merge candidates (Par. [0138] Group-Based Candidate Reordering, all candidates are categorized into 4 candidate groups (i.e. one or more subgroups), where group 1 (i.e. at least a first subgroup) consists of candidate(s) corresponding to MV(s) of spatial neighbouring block(s), group 2 consists of candidate(s) corresponding to MV(s) of temporal neighbouring block(s), group 3 consists of all sub-PU candidates (e.g. Sub-PU TMVP, STMVP and Affine merge candidates), and group 4 consists of all other candidates); or the one or more subgroups of merge candidates comprise a plurality of subgroups of merge candidates, 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. It would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying subgroups of merge candidates as taught by CHEN in the invention of PARK in order to improve the coding efficiency (See CHEN, Par. [0139]).
Regarding Claim 51, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 50. PARK further teaches 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 (Par. [0143] It can reorder better candidate group (i.e., a lower cost candidate group) (i.e. first subgroup separately) to be front of worse candidate group (i.e., a higher cost candidate group) (i.e. second subgroup)); or reordering the first subgroup of merge candidates without considering the second subgroup of merge candidates.
Regarding Claim 52, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 51. CHEN further teaches wherein the first and second subgroups of merge candidates are reordered separately while remaining an order between the first and second subgroups (Par. [0143], In step 1430, the candidates are reordered by placing a good group in front of a bad group according to estimated cost). It would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying reordering the subgroups of merge candidates as taught by CHEN in the invention of PARK in order to improve the coding efficiency (See CHEN, Par. [0139]).
Regarding Claim 53, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 37. PARK fails to explicitly teach the bitstream of the video comprises a first indication whether the reordering of the list of merge candidates is applied for the target block.
However, CHEN teaches the bitstream of the video comprises a first indication whether the reordering of the list of merge candidates is applied for the target block (Par. a flag (i.e. a first indication) can be signaled to switch on or off for Merge Candidate Reorder. For example, a flag (e.g. “merge_cand_rdr_en”) may be signaled to indicate whether “Merge Candidate Reorder” is enabled (e.g. value 1: enabled, value 0: disabled). When not present, the value of merge_cand_rdr_en is inferred to be 1).
References PARK and CHEN are considered to be analogous art because they relate to merge candidate lists. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify an indication for reordering of merge candidates as taught by CHEN in the invention of PARK in order to signal to switch on or off for Merge Candidate Reorder (See CHEN, Par. [0096]).
Regarding Claim 54, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 53. CHEN further teaches wherein the first indication comprises a message signaled in at least one of a video parameter set (VPS), a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a sequence header, a picture header, a slice header, a coding tree unit (CTU), a coding unit (CU), transform unit (TU), or a prediction unit (PU) (Par. [0096], coded in the sequence level, picture level, slice level, or PU level).
Apparatus claim 55 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 37. Therefore apparatus claim 55 corresponds to method claim 37 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above. Claim 55 further recites a processing unit and a memory (See PARK Par. [0296], The modules may be stored in a memory and may be executed by a processor).
Claim 56 is drawn to the computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 37. Therefore claim 56 corresponds to method claim 37 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claim 57, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 37. PARK further teaches further comprising: storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Par. [0298], a bitstream generated by the encoding method may be stored in a computer-readable recording medium or transmitted through a wired or wireless communication network).
Regarding Claim 58, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 37. PARK further teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (Par. [0101] The encoding device/decoding device (i.e. conversion) may derive a refine merge candidate for the reordered merge candidate of the merge candidate list, where the refine merge candidate may be derived by refining a motion vector of the reordered merge candidate).
Claims 43 - 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al., (US 2021/0037238 A1), in view of CHEN et al., (US 2020/0068218 A1), and in further view of ABE et al., (US 2021/0168403 A1) referred to as ABE hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 43, PARK in view of CHEN teaches Claim 37. PARK in view of CHEN fails to explicitly teach the coding mode comprises an affine merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD).
However, ABE teaches the coding mode comprises an affine merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) (Par. [0302] –[0313] MV Derivation>Affine Merge Mode, FIG. 26A, FIG. 26B, FIG. 26C, Fig. 27 are conceptual diagrams for illustrating the affine merge mode. In the affine merge mode, for example, motion vector predictors at respective control points of a current block are calculated based on a plurality of motion vectors corresponding to blocks encoded according to the affine mode).
References PARK, CHEN and ABE are considered to be analogous art because they relate to merge candidate lists. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying affine merge mode as taught by ABE in the inventions of PARK and CHEN. This modification would allow deriving, as an MV of a current block, a motion vector of each of a plurality of sub-blocks included in the current block, assuming affine transform (See ABE, Par. [0249]).
Regarding Claim 44, PARK in combination with CHEN and ABE teaches claim 43. PARK further teaches the list of merge candidates is to derive a list of base merge candidates (Fig. 6a, normal candidate list (i.e. base merge candidates)); or the list of merge candidates is reordered after affine MMVD refinement.
Regarding Claim 45, PARK in combination with CHEN and ABE teaches claim 44. PARK in view of CHEN does not specifically teach affine merge mode. However, ABE further teaches the list of merge candidates is reordered (Par. [0260], The processes related to the MV candidate list include, for example, extraction or selection of an MV candidate from the MV candidate list, reordering of MV candidates, or deletion of an MV candidate) before a list of affine merge candidates is refined by a signaled or derived MVD (Fig. 31, Par. [0083], the finally-derived motion vector (i.e. before refined) is a motion vector corrected using a decoder motion vector refinement (DMVR) process when an inter prediction mode in the inter prediction process is a merge mode), the list of affine merge candidates (Par. [0243], Modes in which motion information is encoded among the modes include the affine mode (specifically, an affine inter mode and an affine merge mode)) being constructed based on the list of merge candidates (Par. [0262] The merge mode is an inter prediction mode for selecting an MV candidate from an MV candidate list as an MV of a current block, thereby deriving the MV). It would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying affine merge mode as taught by ABE in the inventions of PARK and CHEN. This modification would allow deriving, as an MV of a current block, a motion vector of each of a plurality of sub-blocks included in the current block, assuming affine transform (See ABE, Par. [0249]).
Regarding Claim 46, PARK in combination with CHEN and ABE teaches claim 44. PARK further teaches the list of merge candidates is reordered after merge candidates in the list are refined by a signaled or derived MVD (Par. [0161], after the refine merge candidate is derived, the encoding device/decoding device may reorder the refine merge candidate and the existing merge candidate). PARK in view of CHEN does not specifically teach affine merge mode. However, ABE further teaches the list of merge candidates (Par. [0262] The merge mode is an inter prediction mode for selecting an MV candidate from an MV candidate list as an MV of a current block, thereby deriving the MV) comprises a list of affine merge candidates (Par. [0243], Modes in which motion information is encoded among the modes include the affine mode (specifically, an affine inter mode and an affine merge mode)). It would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying affine merge mode as taught by ABE in the inventions of PARK and CHEN. This modification would allow deriving, as an MV of a current block, a motion vector of each of a plurality of sub-blocks included in the current block, assuming affine transform (See ABE, Par. [0249]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (571) 272-7527. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425