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) 1 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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) 28, 29 and 35 - 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al (US 2022/0329822, hereafter Chang) in view of Bordes et al (US 2022/0021869, hereafter Bordes)
As per claim 28, Chang discloses method for video processing, comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, at least one coding tool applied to a current video unit associated with the current video block (¶ 29); and performing the conversion based on a refinement process applied to the current video unit wherein applying the refinement process to the current video unit depends on the at least one coding tool (¶ 28 and 29),
wherein if the current video unit is coded with a multiple hypothesis prediction mode, the refinement process is enabled for the current video unit (¶ 28).
However, the Chang does not teach wherein the refinement process is applied with a plurality of passes, wherein if two reference pictures in a first list and one reference picture in a second list are used for the refinement process, in a first pass, a motion vector associated with one of the two reference pictures in the first list and the one reference picture in the second list is refined; and in a second pass, a further motion vector associated with the other one of the two reference pictures in the first list and the one reference picture in the second list is refined.
In the same field of endeavor, Bordes teaches wherein the refinement process is applied with a plurality of passes, wherein if two reference pictures in a first list and one reference picture in a second list are used for the refinement process, in a first pass, a motion vector associated with one of the two reference pictures in the first list and the one reference picture in the second list is refined; and in a second pass, a further motion vector associated with the other one of the two reference pictures in the first list and the one reference picture in the second list is refined (¶ 66).
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 Chang in view of Bordes. The advantage is improved vide coding.
As per claim 29, Chang discloses the method of claim 28, wherein performing the conversion comprises: if the current video unit is coded with a multiple hypothesis prediction mode, disabling the refinement process (¶ 28).
As per claim 35, Chang discloses the method of claim 28, wherein performing the conversion comprises: applying the refinement process dependent on coding information (¶ 27 and 28).
As per claim 36, Chang discloses the method of claim 35, wherein the coding information comprises a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) coded information, and wherein if the current video unit is coded with a GPM, the refinement process is applied dependent on the GPM mode information (¶ 106,109, and 110).
As per claim 37, Chang discloses the method of claim 36, wherein the GPM mode information comprises at least one of: a GPM mode index, a GPM partition line angle index, or a GPM partition line angle distance index (¶ 106 and 108).
As per claim 38, Chang discloses the method of claim 35, wherein the coding information comprises information of a weighted sample prediction process for a geometric partitioning mode (GPM), and wherein the refinement process for the GPM coded video unit is applied based on the information of the weighted sample prediction process (¶ 108).
As per claim 39, Chang discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the refinement process comprises a template matching method, and wherein performing the conversion comprises: using prediction samples of a neighboring block in the template matching method for an inter-coded block (¶ 80).
As per claim 40, Chang discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the refinement process comprises a template matching method, and wherein whether samples of a neighboring block are allowed to be used in a template matching method for an inter-coded block is determined based on coding information of the neighboring block (¶ 80).
As per claim 41, Chang discloses the method of claim 40, wherein the samples of the neighboring block comprise at least one of prediction samples or reconstruction samples, or wherein if the neighboring block is inter-coded, the samples of the neighboring block are allowed to be used in the template matching method for the inter-coded block, or if residues of the neighboring block are all equal to zero, the samples of the neighboring block are allowed to be used in the template matching method for the inter-coded block, or wherein if the samples of the neighboring block are not refined, the samples of the neighboring block are allowed to be used in the template matching method for the inter-coded block (¶ 80).
As per claim 42, Chang discloses the method of claim 41, wherein the unrefined samples of the neighboring block are used in the template matching method for the inter-coded block (¶ 80).
As per claim 43, Chang discloses the method of claim 28, wherein performing the conversion comprises: if the current video unit is coded with a multiple hypothesis prediction mode, applying the refinement process, more than one prediction blocks for a reference picture list being utilized in the multiple hypothesis prediction mode (¶ 28).
As per claim 44, Chang discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the current video block from the bitstream of the video (¶ 29).
As per claim 45, Chang discloses the method of claim 28, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the current video block into the bitstream of the video (¶ 29).
Regarding claim 46, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 28 are applicable for claim 46.
Regarding claim 47, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 28 are applicable for claim 47.
As per claim 48, Chang discloses the method of claim 28, further comprising: storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (¶ 255).
Claim(s) 32 - 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Bordes (hereafter Chen) in further view of Chen et al (US 2024/0022757, hereafter Chen).
As per claim 32, Chang discloses the method of claim 31.
However, Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the refined motion vector and the further refined motion vector are utilized to generate a final prediction block of the current video unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches wherein the refined motion vector and the further refined motion vector are utilized to generate a final prediction block of the current video unit (¶ 123).
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 Chang in view of Chen. The advantage is improved vide coding.
As per claim 33, Chang discloses the method of claim 28.
However, Chang does not explicitly teach wherein performing the conversion comprises if a first number of reference pictures in a first list and a second number of reference pictures in a second list are used for the refinement process, applying the refinement process for a third number of times based on motion information of respective reference pictures in the first and the second lists, the third number being equal to a sum of the first and the second numbers, or if two reference pictures in a first list and one reference picture in a second list are used for the refinement process, applying the refinement process depending on the virtual prediction block generated by utilizing the two reference blocks in the first list.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches wherein performing the conversion comprises if a first number of reference pictures in a first list and a second number of reference pictures in a second list are used for the refinement process, applying the refinement process for a third number of times based on motion information of respective reference pictures in the first and the second lists, the third number being equal to a sum of the first and the second numbers, or if two reference pictures in a first list and one reference picture in a second list are used for the refinement process, applying the refinement process depending on the virtual prediction block generated by utilizing the two reference blocks in the first list (¶ 123).
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 Chang in view of Chen. The advantage is improved vide coding.
As per claim 34, Chang discloses the method of claim 33.
However, Chang does not explicitly teach wherein the first list is a list X and the second list is a list Y, X being equal to 0 or 1 and Y being equal to 1-X.
In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches wherein the first list is a list X and the second list is a list Y, X being equal to 0 or 1 and Y being equal to 1-X (¶ 123).
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 Chang in view of Chen. The advantage is improved vide coding.
Conclusion
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