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) 1-22 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.
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.
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) 1-4, 8-14, and 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (US 2024/0205414 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0368916 A1) and Chen et al. (US 2018/0359483 A1).
Consider claim 1, Deng teaches a method for decoding a video block in geometry partition mode (GPM), comprising: partitioning the video block into first and second geometric partitions (Fig. 7; [0121] – [0123], [0142] – [0146]); constructing a uni-directional motion victor (MV) candidate list of the GPM by adding a plurality of regular merge candidates ([0124], [0147] – [0169]); and generating a uni-directional MV for the first geometric partition and a uni-directional MV for the second geometric partition ([0066] – [0072]).
However, Deng does not explicitly teach in response to determining that the uni-directional MV candidate list is not full, constructing a first updated uni-directional MV candidate list by adding one or more additional uni-directional MVs derived from one or more bi-prediction MVs of a regular merge candidate list to the uni-directional MV candidate list; in response to determining that the first updated uni-directional MV candidate list is not full, constructing a second updated uni-directional MV candidate list by adding one or more pairwise average candidates to the first updated uni-directional MV candidate list; in response to determining that the second updated uni-directional MV candidate list is not full, periodically adding zero uni-directional MVs to the second updated uni-directional MV candidate list until a maximum length is reached; and generating a uni-directional MV for the first geometric partition and a uni-directional MV for the second geometric partition.
Zhang teaches in response to determining that the uni-directional MV candidate list is not full, constructing a first updated uni-directional MV candidate list by adding one or more additional uni-directional MVs derived from one or more bi-prediction MVs of a regular merge candidate list to the uni-directional MV candidate list ([0202] – [0213]); in response to determining that the first updated uni-directional MV candidate list is not full, constructing a second updated uni-directional MV candidate list by adding one or more pairwise average candidates to the first updated uni-directional MV candidate list ([0202] – [0213]); in response to determining that the second updated uni-directional MV candidate list is not full, periodically adding zero uni-directional MVs to the second updated uni-directional MV candidate list until a maximum length is reached ([0202] – [0213]), wherein the uni-directional MV candidate list, the first updated uni-directional MV candidate list and the second updated uni-directional MV candidate list are pruned (full pruning process is performed to check whether same candidate has been inserted into the list. [0127], [0142], [0146]. Full pruning is applied in the generation of Uni-Prediction Candidate List. [0206] – [0212])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of adding one or more additional uni-directional MVs derived from one or more bi-prediction MVs of a regular merge candidate list to the uni-directional MV candidate list because such incorporation would facilitate the implementation of triangular prediction mode that help reduce implementation complexity by reducing memory requirements or line buffer size requirements. [0683].
The combination of Deng and Zhang does not explicitly teach the pruning is based on a MV threshold, wherein the MV threshold is determined based on a size of the video block.
Chen teaches the pruning is based on a MV threshold, wherein the MV threshold is determined based on a size of the video block (the pruning processi is adaptive to the block size. In one example, a threshold value can be used to define what needs to be pruned. For example, if the block size is large (i.e., larger than a predefined block size), then the video coder may increase the threshold value accordingly… In another example, the threshold value is adaptive based on the current block size. For instance, in this example, a first threshold value applies for blocks having sizes less than a predefined block size and a second, different threshold value applies for blocks having sizes greater than the predefined block size. [0214] – [0215], [0278], and [0287]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of performing pruning based on a MV threshold that is determined based on a size of the video block because such incorporation would provide a variety of standards for determining what needs to be pruned, which would help avoid redundant partition shape. [0106].
Consider claim 2, Deng teaches deriving the one or more additional uni-directional MVs by obtaining one or more MV candidates with odd merge index in a first reference picture list ([0177], [0253], [0355]) and one or more MVs with even merge index in a second reference picture list ([0178], [0253], [0355]).
Consider claim 3, Zhang teaches the first reference picture list is reference picture L0 and the second reference picture list is L1 ([0920]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of adding one or more additional uni-directional MVs derived from one or more bi-prediction MVs of a regular merge candidate list to the uni-directional MV candidate list because such incorporation would facilitate the implementation of triangular prediction mode that help reduce implementation complexity by reducing memory requirements or line buffer size requirements. [0683].
Consider claim 4, Zhang teaches the first reference picture list is reference picture L1 and the second reference picture list is reference picture L0 ([0920]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of adding one or more additional uni-directional MVs derived from one or more bi-prediction MVs of a regular merge candidate list to the uni-directional MV candidate list because such incorporation would facilitate the implementation of triangular prediction mode that help reduce implementation complexity by reducing memory requirements or line buffer size requirements. [0683].
Consider claim 8, Deng teaches removing redundant candidates from the uni-directional MV candidate list ([0147] – [0169]. Particularly, pruning process in [0151] – [0163]; [0229] – [0238]).
Consider claim 9, Deng teaches in response to determining that an additional uni-directional MV is equal to a candidate in the uni-directional MV candidate list, skipping adding the additional uni-directional MV to the uni-directional MV candidate list ([0147] – [0169]. Particularly, pruning process in [0151] – [0163]; [0229] – [0238]).
Consider claim 10, Deng teaches in response to determining that a difference between the additional uni-directional MV and the candidate in the uni-directional MV candidate list is smaller than an MV threshold, determining that the additional uni-directional MV is equal to the candidate in the uni-directional MV candidate list, wherein the MV threshold is a fixed threshold or a variable based on a block size of the video block ([0147] – [0169]. Particularly, pruning process in [0151] – [0163]; [0229] – [0238]).
Consider claim 11, Deng teaches in response to determining that a pairwise average candidate is equal to a candidate in the first updated uni-directional MV candidate list, skipping adding the pairwise average candidate to the first updated uni-directional MV candidate list ([0147] – [0169]. Particularly, pruning process in [0151] – [0163]; [0229] – [0238]).
Consider claim 12, Deng teaches in response to determining that a difference between the pairwise average candidate and the candidate in the first updated uni-directional MV candidate list is smaller than an MV threshold, determining that the pairwise average candidate is equal to the candidate, wherein the MV threshold is a fixed threshold or a variable based on a block size of the video block ([0147] – [0169]. Particularly, pruning process in [0151] – [0163]; [0229] – [0238]).
Consider claim 13, claim 13 recites an apparatus for video decoding, comprising: one or more processors ([0065]); and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors ([0449]); wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions, are configured to perform the method recited in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Consider claim 14, claim 14 recites the apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 2. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 18, claim 18 recites the apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 19, claim 19 recites the apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 20, claim 20 recites the apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 21, claim 21 recites the apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 11. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 22, claim 22 recites the apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 12. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 23, claim 23 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors ([0065] and [0449]), causing the one or more computer processors to perform the method recited in claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (US 2024/0205414 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0368916 A1), Chen et al. (US 2018/0359483 A1), and Hsiao et al. (US 2019/0289315 A1).
Consider claim 5, the combination of Deng and Zhang teaches all the limitations in claim 1 but does not explicitly teach adding the one or more pairwise average candidates to the first updated uni-directional MV candidate list further comprising: obtaining first two uni-directional MV candidates in a first reference picture list or a second reference picture list; and in response to determining that the first two uni-directional MV candidates indicate a same reference picture, obtaining a pairwise average candidate by averaging the first two uni-directional MV candidates.
Hsiao teaches adding the one or more pairwise average candidates to the first updated uni-directional MV candidate list further comprising: obtaining first two uni-directional MV candidates in a first reference picture list or a second reference picture list ([0035] – [0036]); and in response to determining that the first two uni-directional MV candidates indicate a same reference picture, obtaining a pairwise average candidate by averaging the first two uni-directional MV candidates ([0035] – [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of obtaining a pairwise average candidate by averaging the first two uni-directional MV candidates because such incorporation would reduce computational complexity. [0035].
Consider claim 6, Hsiao teaches in response to determining that the first two uni-directional MV candidates indicate different reference pictures, obtaining the pairwise average candidate by determining a magnitude of the pairwise average candidate by averaging the first two uni-directional MV candidates ([0035] – [0036]) and determining the reference picture of the first uni-directional MV candidate as a reference picture of the pairwise average candidate ([0035] – [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of obtaining a pairwise average candidate by averaging the first two uni-directional MV candidates because such incorporation would reduce computational complexity. [0035].
Consider claim 7, Hsiao teaches in response to determining that the first two uni-directional MV candidates indicate different reference pictures, obtaining the pairwise average candidate by determining a magnitude of the pairwise average candidate by averaging the first two uni-directional MV candidates ([0035] – [0036]) and determining the reference picture of the second uni-directional MV candidate as a reference picture of the pairwise average candidate ([0035] – [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of obtaining a pairwise average candidate by averaging the first two uni-directional MV candidates because such incorporation would reduce computational complexity. [0035].
Consider claim 15, claim 15 recites the apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 5. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 16, claim 16 recites the apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 6. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 17, claim 17 recites the apparatus that implements the method recited in claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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 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 TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE J ATALA can be reached at 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 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.
/TAT C CHIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights