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
The objection of claim 50 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments
Applicant's arguments filed on November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach, disclose or suggest all limitations of claim 48. In particular, Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose “a refinement process applied to a current video unit associated with the current video block based on” (referred to as feature (1) hereinafter); and wherein determining the refinement process comprises determining at least one of the following: blocks, subblocks, samples or pixels in the current video unit, to be applied with the refinement process (referred to as feature ( 2) hereinafter);.
Regarding feature (1), applicant argues that Chen focuses on block size/dimension constraints for applying DMVR, not coding tools.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen discloses not only determine to perform DMVR for the block based on the determination of the dimension, but also based on coding tools applied to the video unit. Specifically, Chen teaches, in ¶¶[0133] and [0134], that DMVR in not applied if the MMVR or Merge Offset extension coding tool are present. This constitutes a direct determination of the refinement process based on coding tools. Furthermore, Chen explains, in ¶[0073], disabling the refinement (BIO) when the Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) coding tool is enabled. Thus, Chen clearly discloses the feature (1)
Regarding feature (2), applicant argues that Chen fail to teach determining blocks, subblocks, samples or pixels to be applied with the refinement process, implying that Chen only applies the refinement to the coding unit as a whole.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Chen discloses determining whether to apply DMVR at the block level in ¶¶[0149] – [0151]: “video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may employ a constraint on the minimal block size of DMVR …when a prediction block satisfies
any of the below conditions, video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 do not perform DMVR;” and ¶[0156]: “ In this manner, video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may avoid performing DMVR for a block having at least one of a width or a height of less than 8 pixels, or a size equal to 8x8 pixels.”
Further, Chen discloses determining refinement at the subblock level in ¶[0124]:” Another example techniques includes a constraint on a constructed affine merge candidate … to avoid taking refined MVs conditionally from causal neighboring sub-blocks as CPMVs to form an
affine merge candidate. In this example technique, each sub-block MV that is sampled in the spatial causal neighborhood of the current CU applies the following rules to determine whether its original sub-block MV or its refined alternative can be used…”
Furthermore, Chen discloses determining refinement at the subblock level in [0064]:” BIO is pixel-wise motion refinement that is performed on top of block-wise motion compensation in a
case of bi-prediction. Since BIO compensates the fine motion inside the block, enabling BIO may result in enlarging block size for motion compensation. Sample-level motion refinement does not require exhaustive search or signaling.
Therefore, Chen, also, clearly discloses the feature (2)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 48-55 and 60-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US20200169748A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 48, Chen discloses method for video processing, comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (Chen, ¶¶ [0002] - video coding, including video encoding and video decoding) , a refinement process applied to a current video unit associated with the current video block based on coding tools applied to the current video unit (Chen, ¶[0005] - motion vector refinement (DMVR); and ¶¶ [0073], [0133] and [0134]); and
performing the conversion based on the refinement process (Chen, FIG. 18 and ¶¶ [0220] and [0221] – step 402).
wherein determining the refinement process comprises determining at least one of the following: blocks, subblocks, samples or pixels in the current video unit, to be applied with the refinement process (Chen, ¶¶ [0064], [0124], [0149] – [0151] and [0156]).
Regarding claim 49, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 48, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 48, wherein determining the refinement process comprises determining at least one of the following:
location of the blocks or the sub-blocks in the current video unit to be applied with the refinement process (Chen, ¶¶ [0059]- [0061] disclosing BIO applied to specific number of pixel; ¶¶[0156]-[0159] disclosing determining refinement based on block locations), or the number of the samples or pixels in the current video unit to be applied with the refinement process (Chen, ¶¶ [0062], [0066] and [0067] disclosing BIO applied to specific number of pixel; ¶¶[0156]-[0159] disclosing block size determining number of pixel for refinement).
Regarding claim 50, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 48, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 48, wherein if the current video unit satisfies a predefined dimension condition, surrounding blocks or surrounding sub-blocks within the current video unit are to be refined in the refinement process, or wherein if the current video unit satisfies a predefined dimension condition, at least one block or at least one sub-block, which is not located at boundaries of the current video unit, is to be refined in the refinement process, or wherein if the current video unit satisfies a predefined dimension condition, blocks or sub-blocks located at a top first number of rows and/or a top second number of columns are to be refined in the refinement process, wherein at least one of the first number or second number is unequal to one, or wherein if a width of the current video unit is larger than or equal to a threshold width, and/or if a height of the current video unit is larger than or equal to a threshold height, at least one portion of blocks within the current video unit or at least one portion of sub-blocks within the current video unit are to be refined in the refinement process, or wherein if a width of the current video unit is less than or equal to a threshold width, and/or if a height of the current video unit is less than or equal to a threshold height, at least one portion of blocks within the current video unit or at least one portion of sub-blocks within the current video unit are to be refined in the refinement process, or wherein if a product of a width and a height of the current video unit is greater than or equal to a threshold product, at least one portion of blocks within the current video unit or at least one portion of sub-blocks within the current video unit are to be refined in the refinement process, or wherein if a product of a width and a height of the current video unit is less than a threshold product, at least one portion of blocks within the current video unit or at least one portion of sub-blocks within the current video unit are to be refined in the refinement process, or wherein at least one of blocks, sub-blocks, samples or pixels of the current video unit to be applied with the refinement process is determined dependent on dimensions of the current video unit, or wherein whether the refinement process is applied to at least one of blocks, sub-blocks, samples or pixels within the current video unit is determined on-the-fly (Chen, FIG. 18 and corresponding paragraphs – steps 402, 404 and 410).
Regarding claim 51, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 50, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 50, wherein the surrounding blocks or the surrounding sub-blocks are located at boundaries of the current video unit, or wherein positions of the blocks or the sub-blocks within the current video unit are determined dependent on dimensions of the current video unit (Chen, FIG. 18 and corresponding paragraphs – steps 402, 404 and 410).
Regarding claim 52, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 48, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 48, wherein the refinement process is applied by using at least one of: reconstruction samples in a reference picture other than a current picture associated with the current video unit, samples generated from pictures excluding the current picture, or samples generated from the current picture but not adjacent to the current video unit, or wherein a template matching process is applied by using reconstruction or prediction samples in reference pictures other than reconstruction or prediction samples in a current picture associated with the current video unit, or wherein the refinement process for an inter coded block or motion is applied without using reconstruction or prediction samples in a current picture associated with the current video unit, or wherein the refinement process for an inter coded block or motion is applied without using the intra coded reconstruction or prediction samples in a current picture associated with the current video unit (Chen, Figs 5A and 5B and corresponding paragraphs – Bilateral matching).
Regarding claim 53, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 48, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 48, wherein a bilateral matching process is applied dependent on one or more prediction blocks from a same reference picture list (Chen, Figs 5A and 5B and corresponding paragraphs – Bilateral matching).
Regarding claim 54, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 53, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 53, wherein the bilateral matching process is invoked by comparing a first number of prediction blocks in a second number of reference pictures from a same prediction direction, or wherein the bilateral matching process is used to refine or process a motion of a uni- prediction coded block, or wherein the bilateral matching process is used to refine or process a LO or L1 motion of a bi-prediction coded block (Chen, Figs 5A and 5B and corresponding paragraphs – Bilateral matching).
Regarding claim 55, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 54, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 54, wherein the bilateral matching process is applied by using a first prediction block from a first reference picture in a LO reference list and second prediction block from a second reference picture in the LO reference list, or wherein the bilateral matching process is applied by using a first prediction block from a first reference picture in a L1 reference list and second prediction block from a second reference picture in the L1 reference list (Chen, Figs 5A and 5B and corresponding paragraphs – Bilateral matching).
Regarding claim 60, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 48, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 48, wherein a bilateral matching process is applied dependent on a prediction direction of a current block associated with the current video unit (Chen, ¶ [0050]).
Regarding claim 61, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 60, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 60, wherein whether the bilateral matching process is performed from motion-compensated prediction blocks in a same prediction direction is determined dependent on the prediction direction of the current block, or wherein if when an LO predicted inter block is processed, the bilateral matching process is applied to the current block by using information of a first number of templates in a second number reference pictures in the LO prediction direction, or wherein if an L1 predicted inter block is processed, the bilateral matching process is applied to the current block by using information of a first number of templates in a second number reference pictures in the L1 prediction direction, or wherein if a bi-directional predicted inter block is processed, the bilateral matching process is applied to the current block by using information of a first template in a LO reference picture and a second template in a L1 reference picture (Chen, ¶¶ [0048]- [0050]).
Regarding claim 62, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 61, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 61, wherein the templates are motion-compensated prediction blocks, or wherein the templates are prediction or reconstruction samples neighboring to motion- compensated prediction blocks (Chen, ¶¶ [0048]- [0050]).
Regarding claim 63, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 48, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 48, wherein the refinement process comprises at least one of a template matching process or a bilateral matching process (Chen, ¶¶ [0118] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 64, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 48, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 48, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the current video block from the bitstream of the video (Chen, ¶ [0002] - video coding, including video encoding and video decoding).
Regarding claim 65, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 48, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 48, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the current video block into the bitstream of the video (Chen, ¶ [0002] - video coding, including video encoding and video decoding).
Regarding claim 66, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 48, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Chen discloses apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non- transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising (Chen, ¶¶ [0223]- [0228])
Regarding claims 67, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by the feature encoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 67 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing data and is anticipated by Chen which recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (See Chen, ¶¶ [0223] – [0228]).
Regarding claim 68, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 48, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Chen discloses, wherein instructions causing a processor to perform the method is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Chen, ¶¶ [0223]- [0228]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Liu et al. (US20210227245A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu
Regarding claim 56, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 48, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 48, wherein the current video unit is coded with a multiple-hypothesis prediction mode.
However, Liu from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses the method of claim 48, wherein the current video unit is coded with a multiple-hypothesis prediction mode (Liu, ¶¶ [0199]- [0210] - perform DMVR on the motion vector if the other criteria indicate that DMVR is enabled (414)).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Liu as above, in order to get more accurate motion information such that higher coding gains may be expected. (Liu, [0272]).
Claim 57-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Choi et al. (US20210227245A1), hereinafter referred to as Choi.
Regarding claim 57, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 48, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 48, wherein a bilateral matching process is used to reorder motion candidates.
However, Choi from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses the method of claim 48, wherein a bilateral matching process is used to reorder motion candidates. (Choi, ¶ [0089] - perform a motion vector refinement for selected candidate, e.g., according to a template matching or bilateral matching).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Choi as above, in order to reorder the set of candidates such that all bi-prediction candidates are ordered higher on the candidate list. (Choi, [0089]).
Regarding claim 58, Chen and Choi disclose all the limitations of claim 57, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 57, wherein whether to reorder the motion candidates with the bilateral matching process is determined dependent on a coding mode comprising at least one of the following:
an affine merge, an affine advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP), a regular merge, a regular AMVP, a geometric partition mode (GPM), a triangular prediction mode (TPM), a merge mode with motion vector differences (MMVD), a template matching merge, a combined inter/intra prediction (CIIP), a geometric prediction mode with motion vector difference (GMVD) or an affine MMVD, or wherein the ordering of the motion candidates with the bilateral matching process is performed based on a coding mode comprising at least one of the following: an affine merge, an affine advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP), a regular merge, a regular AMVP, a geometric partition mode (GPM), a triangular prediction mode (TPM), a merge mode with motion vector differences (MMVD), a template matching merge, a combined inter/intra prediction (CIIP), a geometric prediction mode with motion vector difference (GMVD) or an affine MMVD, or wherein the bilateral matching process is used to reorder bi-directional motion candidates, or wherein if the bilateral matching process is used to reorder uni-directional motion candidates, the uni-directional motion candidates are arranged in a motion candidate list according to an initial order, or wherein if the bilateral matching process is used to reorder uni-directional motion candidates, the uni-directional motion candidates are put behind the bi-directional motion candidates, or wherein if the bilateral matching process is used to reorder uni-directional motion candidates, the uni-directional motion candidates are put before the bi-directional motion candidates, or wherein the motion candidates are reordered ascendingly according to cost values based on the bilateral matching process.
However, Choi from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses the method of claim 57, wherein whether to reorder the motion candidates with the bilateral matching process is determined dependent on a coding mode comprising at least one of the following:
an affine merge, an affine advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP), a regular merge, a regular AMVP, a geometric partition mode (GPM), a triangular prediction mode (TPM), a merge mode with motion vector differences (MMVD), a template matching merge, a combined inter/intra prediction (CIIP), a geometric prediction mode with motion vector difference (GMVD) or an affine MMVD, or wherein the ordering of the motion candidates with the bilateral matching process is performed based on a coding mode comprising at least one of the following: an affine merge, an affine advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP), a regular merge, a regular AMVP, a geometric partition mode (GPM), a triangular prediction mode (TPM), a merge mode with motion vector differences (MMVD), a template matching merge, a combined inter/intra prediction (CIIP), a geometric prediction mode with motion vector difference (GMVD) or an affine MMVD, or wherein the bilateral matching process is used to reorder bi-directional motion candidates, or wherein if the bilateral matching process is used to reorder uni-directional motion candidates, the uni-directional motion candidates are arranged in a motion candidate list according to an initial order, or wherein if the bilateral matching process is used to reorder uni-directional motion candidates, the uni-directional motion candidates are put behind the bi-directional motion candidates, or wherein if the bilateral matching process is used to reorder uni-directional motion candidates, the uni-directional motion candidates are put before the bi-directional motion candidates, or wherein the motion candidates are reordered ascendingly according to cost values based on the bilateral matching process (Choi, ¶¶ [0039] and [0088]- [0092]).
The motivation for combining Chen and Choi has been discussed in connection with claim 57, above.
Regarding claim 59, Chen and Choi disclose all the limitations of claim 58, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 58, wherein the uni-directional motion candidates are converted to bi-directional motion candidates for calculating a bilateral matching cost
However, Choi from the same or similar endeavor of data compression discloses the method of claim 58, wherein the uni-directional motion candidates are converted to bi-directional motion candidates for calculating a bilateral matching cost (Choi, ¶ [0039], Examiner notes that the limitations related to the uni-directional motion candidates language are optional in claim 58. Because claim 59 depends on this optional aspect, claim 59 is likewise considered optional).
The motivation for combining Chen and Choi has been discussed in connection with claim 57, 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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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 on (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 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.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights