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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (3 US Provisional Applications the earliest of which 63/358,257 was filed on July 5th, 2022).
The Examiner to expedite prosecution affords the date of July 5th, 2022 for search and consideration purposes.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1 – 2, 4, and 10 – 12) in the reply filed on September 22nd, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 5 – 9, and 13 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II – IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 22nd, 2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1 – 2, 4, and 10 – 12 beyond formalities, 112, and 101 Rejections.
Claims 3, 5 – 9, and 13 – 20 are withdrawn currently.
The pending claims are 1 – 2, 4, and 10 – 12 [Page 9 lines 1 – 10].
Applicant amended the Specification to address Examiner’s Specification Objections [Page 9 lines 11 – 16].
Applicant amended the Drawings and Specification to address some of the Examiner’s Drawing Objections [Page 9 lines 17 – 22]. Drawing Objection b) is maintain as the minus sign is on the output instead on the prediction block input as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and consistent with Specification Paragraph 43.
Applicant amended the claims to address Examiner’s 112(b) Rejections [Page 10 liens 1 – 7]. The Examiner reconsiders the Rejections in view of the amended claims.
Applicant amended the claims to overcome Examiner’s 101 Rejection [Page 10 lines 8 – 14].
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.
First, the Applicant recites the references against the claims [Page 10 lines 15 – 19].
Second, the Applicant contends the references do not render obvious features of amended independent claim 1 [Page 11 lines 1 – 7] and recites features of amended independent claim 1 [Page 11 lines 8 – 16].
Third, the Applicant contends Wang and Li do not render obvious features of amended independent claim 1 citing to a paragraph each in Wang and Li [Page 11 line 17 – Page 12 line 4]. However, the Examiner in view of the amended claim cites an additional reference against the claim.
Fourth, the Applicant contends further Wang and Li do not render obvious the amended claims by broadly arguing against the citations provided in claim 1 or Wang and Li [Page 12 lines 5 – 11] and concluding amended independent claim 1 is allowable [Page 12 lines 12 – 17]. However, the Examiner in view of the amended claim cites an additional reference against the claim.
Fifth, the Applicant contends dependent claims 2, 4, 10, and 12 are allowable for at least the reasons given [Page 12 line 18 – Page 13 line 2].
Sixth, the Applicant contends claim 11 additionally rejected by Li 72 is allowable for at least the reasons given for claim 1 [Page 13 line 3 – 14].
While the Applicant’s points may be understood, the Examiner in view of the amended claims cites a new reference against the claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 22nd, 2025 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (mailed November 4th, 2025). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
There is no “-“ sign on an input going into the subtractor in Figure 1A reference character 110 [See Specification Paragraph 43].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a refined MV" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a plurality of respective refined MVs" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " a plurality of respective refined MVs" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
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(s) 1, 2, 4, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, et al. (WO 2020/243100 A1 referred to as “Wang” throughout) [First Cited in the Office Action mailed November 4th, 2025], and further in view of Li, et al. (US PG PUB 2023/0328225 A1 referred to as “Li” throughout in which citations will come from the US PG PUB in lieu of enabling US Provisional Applications) and Kang, et al. (US PG PUB 2024/0364904 A1 referred to a “Kang” throughout where the Examiner observes the Application has been Patented and thus affords the Foreign Priority dates).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a search for MVs (motion vectors) for affine control points based on neighboring blocks / pixels. Li teaches further refinements and details of Wang’s algorithm with additional offset including fractional offset considerations and teachings regarding the maximum number of iterations. Kang teaches using the same affine model (e.g. by estimating the parameters) to use for MV refinement / CPMV refinement for the affine models.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Li’s teachings of maximum number of iterations and the use of searching with integer and fractional offsets in conducting the search iterations using the same model / estimated models as taught by Kang. The combination teaches
one or more processors [Wang Figure 1 (see at least reference characters 20 and 30) as well as Paragraphs 33 and 96 (various processor implementations of the encoder / decoder)], and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform associated operations comprising [Wang Figure 1 (see at least reference characters 20 and 30) as well as Paragraphs 8, 33 (non-transitory computer media examples) and 96 (various processor implementations of the encoder / decoder and in Paragraph 96 the obvious variant “computer-readable storage media” stores programs / has instructions to run on a processor as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art)]:
performing a search for a refined motion vector (MV) for a control point motion vector (CPMV) of a coding block (CB) coded by an affine model, while parameters of the affine model are fixed; [Wang Figures 5 (all subfigures included where Figures 5C and 5F show flowcharts and 5D and 5E show refined searches based on control points for MV determinations) as well as Paragraphs 40 – 44 and 74 – 78 (inter predicted block using translational / affine motion models in inter prediction / motion compensated prediction in which CPMVs are refined) and 79 – 84 (search algorithm for refining the control point MV) in which the refinement is taught by Kang and Li Figures 12 and 14 – 16 (see the flow chart for updated / refined MV search with a maximum number of iterations in Figure 16 and searching control points in Figure 14 (see at least reference characters 1406 and 1408) and Kang) and Paragraphs 163 – 168 (refinement in equations 7 and 12 for affine models and search in Figure 14 – combinable with Kang) and 201 – 216 (refinement search range in Paragraph 213 using DMVR and fractional offsets in Paragraphs 214 – 216 – combinable with Kang); Kang Figures 6 – 8 and 16 – 17 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 8 – 10 (MBM – multi-pass / iterative MV search technique), 52 and 225 – 230 (rendering obvious estimating the affine model parameters (model parameters) and then searching / refining the MV / CPMV search based on the estimated affine model)]; and
coding the CB by the affine model, wherein the affine model comprises a refined motion vector (MV) of the CB [Wang Figures 1 – 3, 5A – 5C and 5F (see last step in the flowcharts and at least reference characters 22, 42, and 590) as well as Paragraphs 40 (output MV with refined precision information combinable with Paragraphs 77 – 81 (refinement of MV searched of affine predicted inter predicted block)), 41 – 44 (motion compensation unit for inter prediction which includes use of affine models in Paragraphs 74 – 78 and 79 – 84 where the block is coded using the affine model and CPMVs determined in combination with Li and Kang (see previous limitation for citations of Li and Kang))].
The motivation to combine Li with Wang is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of video coding [Li Paragraphs 2 – 10 and 17 – 19] in order to improve compression efficiency including improving search for motion vector information / determinations of motion vectors [Li Paragraphs 4 – 6 and 17 – 19 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Kang with Li and Wang is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of inter prediction during video coding [Kang Paragraphs 2 – 4] in order to improve video coding efficiency during motion vector consideration for inter prediction [Kang Paragraphs 4, 6 and 10 – 11].
This is the motivation to combine Wang, Li, and Kang which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches a search for MVs (motion vectors) for affine control points based on neighboring blocks / pixels. Li teaches further refinements and details of Wang’s algorithm with additional offset including fractional offset considerations and teachings regarding the maximum number of iterations. Kang teaches using the same affine model (e.g. by estimating the parameters) to use for MV refinement / CPMV refinement for the affine models.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Li’s teachings of maximum number of iterations and the use of searching with integer and fractional offsets in conducting the search iterations using the same model / estimated models as taught by Kang. The combination teaches
outputting a plurality of respective refined MVs of a plurality of CPMVs of the CB [Wang Figures 1 – 3, 5 – 6 (see last step in the flowcharts and at least reference character 22 and 42 where 5D and 5E are CPs for MV determination rendering obvious the CPMV) as well as Paragraphs 40 (output MV with refined precision information combinable with Paragraphs 77 – 81 (refinement of MV searched of affine predicted inter predicted block)), 41 – 44 (motion compensation unit for inter prediction which includes use of affine models in Paragraphs 74 – 82 with search of CPMV in which 2 loops are ran where the inner loop is going through points at a given offset and combinable with Kang’s estimated affine model to search refinements for CPMV in at least Paragraphs 225 – 230) where the plurality is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as Wang, Li, and Kang teach repeatable search processes on CPMV testing various refined MV precisions in further view of MPEP2144.04 IV B (Duplication of Parts)];
wherein each refined MV is derived from a same MV refinement offset applied to a respective initial CPMV [Wang Figures 5 (all subfigures included where Figures 5C and 5F show flowcharts and 5D and 5E show refined searches based on control points for MV determinations) as well as Paragraphs 40 – 44 and 74 – 78 (inter predicted block using translational / affine motion models in inter prediction / motion compensated prediction in which CPMVs are refined) and 79 – 84 (search algorithm for refining the control point MV with search of CPMV in which 2 loops are ran where the inner loop is going through points at a given offset (see Paragraph 82)) in which the refinement is taught by Li Figures 12 and 14 – 16 (see the flow chart for updated / refined MV search with a maximum number of iterations in Figure 16 and searching control points in Figure 14 (see at least reference characters 1406 and 1408)) and Paragraphs 163 – 168 (refinement in equations 7 and 12 for affine models and search in Figure 14) and 201 – 216 (refinement search range in Paragraph 213 using DMVR and fractional offsets in Paragraphs 214 – 216 to combine with the multiple loop searching in Wang Paragraph 82 and Figure 6)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Wang, Li, and Kang.
Regarding claim 4, Wang teaches a search for MVs (motion vectors) for affine control points based on neighboring blocks / pixels. Li teaches further refinements and details of Wang’s algorithm with additional offset including fractional offset considerations and teachings regarding the maximum number of iterations. Kang teaches using the same affine model (e.g. by estimating the parameters) to use for MV refinement / CPMV refinement for the affine models.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Li’s teachings of maximum number of iterations and the use of searching with integer and fractional offsets in conducting the search iterations using the same model / estimated models as taught by Kang. The combination teaches
performing the search further comprises performing a plurality of search iterations of an integer sample offset search at a plurality of search points about a search center to output an integer-distance refined MV [Wang Figures 5 (all subfigures included where Figures 5C and 5F show flowcharts and 5D and 5E show refined searches based on control points for MV determinations) as well as Paragraphs 40 – 44 and 74 – 78 (inter predicted block using translational / affine motion models in inter prediction / motion compensated prediction in which CPMVs are refined) and 79 – 84 (search algorithm for refining the control point MV with search of CPMV in which 2 loops are ran where the inner loop is going through points at a given offset (see Paragraphs 82 – 83) at integer precision in Paragraph 81) in which the refinement is taught by Li Figures 12 and 14 – 16 (see the flow chart for updated / refined MV search with a maximum number of iterations in Figure 16 and searching control points in Figure 14 (see at least reference characters 1406 and 1408)) and Paragraphs 163 – 168 (refinement in equations 7 and 12 for affine models and search in Figure 14) and 201 – 216 (refinement search range in Paragraph 213 using DMVR and integer offsets in Paragraphs 214 – 216 (and output results in Paragraph 214) to combine with the multiple loop searching with a maximum number of iterations in Wang Paragraph 82 – 83 (Wang Paragraph 83 renders obvious search patterns) and Figure 6 as also taught in Li Figure 16)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Wang, Li, and Kang.
Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches a search for MVs (motion vectors) for affine control points based on neighboring blocks / pixels. Li teaches further refinements and details of Wang’s algorithm with additional offset including fractional offset considerations and teachings regarding the maximum number of iterations. Kang teaches using the same affine model (e.g. by estimating the parameters) to use for MV refinement / CPMV refinement for the affine models.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Li’s teachings of maximum number of iterations and the use of searching with integer and fractional offsets in conducting the search iterations using the same model / estimated models as taught by Kang. The combination teaches
outputting a plurality of respective refined MVs of a plurality of CPMVs of the CB [Wang Figures 1 – 3, 5 – 6 (see last step in the flowcharts and at least reference character 22 and 42 where 5D and 5E are CPs for MV determination rendering obvious the CPMV) as well as Paragraphs 40 (output MV with refined precision information combinable with Paragraphs 77 – 81 (refinement of MV searched of affine predicted inter predicted block)), 41 – 44 (motion compensation unit for inter prediction which includes use of affine models in Paragraphs 74 – 82 with search of CPMV in which 2 loops are ran where the inner loop is going through points at a given offset) where the plurality is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as Wang, Li, and Kang teach repeatable search processes on CPMV testing various refined MV precisions in further view of MPEP2144.04 IV B (Duplication of Parts];
wherein each refined MV is derived from a different MV refinement offset applied to a respective initial CPMV [Wang Figures 5 (all subfigures included where Figures 5C and 5F show flowcharts and 5D and 5E show refined searches based on control points for MV determinations) as well as Paragraphs 40 – 44 and 74 – 78 (inter predicted block using translational / affine motion models in inter prediction / motion compensated prediction in which CPMVs are refined) and 79 – 84 (search algorithm for refining the control point MV with search of CPMV in which 2 loops are ran where the inner loop is going through points at a given offset (see Paragraph 82)) in which the refinement is taught by Li Figures 12 and 14 – 16 (see the flow chart for updated / refined MV search with a maximum number of iterations in Figure 16 and searching control points in Figure 14 (see at least reference characters 1406 and 1408)) and Paragraphs 163 – 168 (refinement in equations 7 and 12 for affine models and search in Figure 14) and 201 – 216 (refinement search range in Paragraph 213 using DMVR and fractional offsets in Paragraphs 214 – 216 to combine with the multiple loop searching in Wang Paragraph 82 and Figure 6 in which offsets / precisions are varied in the search to refine the optimal refined MV offset / precision)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Wang, Li, and Kang.
Regarding claim 12, Wang teaches a search for MVs (motion vectors) for affine control points based on neighboring blocks / pixels. Li teaches further refinements and details of Wang’s algorithm with additional offset including fractional offset considerations and teachings regarding the maximum number of iterations. Kang teaches using the same affine model (e.g. by estimating the parameters) to use for MV refinement / CPMV refinement for the affine models.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Li’s teachings of maximum number of iterations and the use of searching with integer and fractional offsets in conducting the search iterations using the same model / estimated models as taught by Kang. The combination teaches
performing a plurality of search iterations of an integer sample offset search at a plurality of search points about a search center to output an integer-distance refined MV [Wang Figures 5 (all subfigures included where Figures 5C and 5F show flowcharts and 5D and 5E show refined searches based on control points for MV determinations and a center point) as well as Paragraphs 40 – 44 (full / integer and fractional accuracy / refinements made to MVs) and 74 – 78 (CPMVs are refined) and 79 – 84 (search algorithm for refining the control point MV with search of CPMV in which 2 loops are ran where the inner loop is going through points at a given offset (see Paragraph 82) including at integer precisions in Paragraphs 87 – 90) in which the refinement is taught by Li Figures 12 and 14 – 16 (see the flow chart for updated / refined MV search with a maximum number of iterations in Figure 16 and searching control points in Figure 14 (see at least reference characters 1406 and 1408)) and Paragraphs 163 – 168 (refinement in equations 7 and 12 for affine models and search in Figure 14) and 201 – 216 (refinement search range in Paragraph 213 using DMVR and fractional offsets in Paragraphs 214 – 216 to combine with the multiple loop searching where integer sample search from the control point / center is performed (combinable with Wang))]; and
applying fractional sample refinement to the integer-distance refined MV to output a subpixel-accurate refined delta MV [Wang Figures 5 (all subfigures included where Figures 5C and 5F show flowcharts and 5D and 5E show refined searches based on control points for MV determinations and a center point) as well as Paragraphs 40 – 44 (full / integer and fractional accuracy / refinements made to MVs) and 74 – 78 (CPMVs are refined) and 79 – 84 (search algorithm for refining the control point MV with search of CPMV in which 2 loops are ran where the inner loop is going through points at a given offset (see Paragraphs 81 – 82 in which fractional offsets are used – modified by Li) including at integer precisions in Paragraphs 87 – 90) in which the refinement is taught by Li Figures 12 and 14 – 16 (see the flow chart for updated / refined MV search with a maximum number of iterations in Figure 16 and searching control points in Figure 14 (see at least reference characters 1406 and 1408)) and Paragraphs 163 – 168 (refinement in equations 7 and 12 for affine models and search in Figure 14) and 201 – 216 (refinement search range in Paragraph 213 using DMVR and fractional offsets in Paragraphs 214 – 216 are used after the integer offsets are searched (a refined search in which the delta MV is determined (e.g. Paragraphs 216 – 217 and 177 – 179 (determine delta MV for output – also combinable with Li Paragraphs 37 and 172) (combinable with Wang))].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Wang, Li, and Kang.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Li, and Kang, and further in view of Li, et al. (WO2023/149972 A1 referred to “Li 72” throughout in which citations will come from the WIPO document in lieu of enabling US Provisional Applications) [First Cited in the Office Action mailed November 4th, 2025].
Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches a search for MVs (motion vectors) for affine control points based on neighboring blocks / pixels. Li teaches further refinements and details of Wang’s algorithm with additional offset including fractional offset considerations and teachings regarding the maximum number of iterations. Kang teaches using the same affine model (e.g. by estimating the parameters) to use for MV refinement / CPMV refinement for the affine models. Li 72 renders obvious adjusting the number of iterations for the CPMV search of Wang and Li in view of the precision / fractional offset.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang with Li’s teachings of maximum number of iterations and the use of searching with integer and fractional offsets in conducting the search iterations using the same model / estimated models as taught by Kang; and fractional offsets in conducting the search iterations with adjustments to the number of iterations used as taught by Li 72. The combination teaches
wherein performing the search further comprises performing a plurality of search iterations at a plurality of search points about a search center up to a maximum search iteration threshold [Wang Figures 5 (all subfigures included where Figures 5C and 5F show flowcharts and 5D and 5E show refined searches based on control points for MV determinations and a center point) as well as Paragraphs 74 – 78 (CPMVs are refined) and 79 – 84 (search algorithm for refining the control point MV with search of CPMV in which 2 loops are ran where the inner loop is going through points up to a maximum number of iterations in Paragraph 83) in which the refinement and loop / iteration considerations are taught by Li Figures 12 and 14 – 16 (see the flow chart for updated / refined MV search with a maximum number of iterations in Figure 16 and searching control points in Figure 14 (see at least reference characters 1406 and 1408)) and Paragraphs 163 – 168 (refinement in equations 7 and 12 for affine models and search in Figure 14), 172 and 177 – 180 (maximum number of iteration to use for the loop searching) and 201 – 216 (refinement search range in Paragraph 213 using DMVR and fractional offsets in Paragraphs 214 – 216) (combinable with Wang))],
wherein respective maximum search iteration thresholds are smaller for each subsequent refined MV search [See previous limitation for citations and additionally Li 72 Figure 16 as well as Paragraphs 187 – 193 (reduced number of iterations based on the precision being searched for CPMV determination), 215, and 233 – 240 (reducing the number of iterations based on refined / reduced precision CPMV search)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Wang, Li, and Kang.
The motivation to combine Li 72 with Kang, Li, and Wang is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of video coding [Li 72 Paragraphs 2 – 5] in order to improve efficiency of the codec and improve accuracy of MVs predicted [Li 72 Paragraphs 5 – 7 and 16 – 19 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Steger (US PG PUB 2002/0057838 A1 referred to as “Steger” throughout) teaches techniques in using a fixed / estimated affine model in processing nodes to determine the full description of the affine model in image processing (see Figures 1 and 4).
References which may raise ODP issues based on amendments made to the claims: Chen, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0113053 A1 referred to as “Chen” throughout).
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 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 Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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 at (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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights