DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a response to an amendment filed on 07/23/2025, in which claims 1-18 are pending and ready for examination.
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 claims 1-18 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1 applicant argues that Chen fails to disclose the limitation of “obtaining, by the decoder, an updated cost value for the initial MV by decreasing the cost value for the initial MV” as recited by claim 1.
However, examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously mentioned in the Final Rejection dated 11/04/2025, in paragraph 120 Chen discloses the calculation of two cost values. The first cost value is calculated to determine and selecting the initial motion vector (starting point MV), then a second cost value is calculated based on a local search of bilateral matching or template matching around the starting point. In this case, the first cost value is derived for the initial MV to select an initial MV with minimum matching cost, and the second cost value is determined based on a search around the starting point to further minimize the matching cost of the initial motion vector. Thus, the second matching cost is considered an updated matching cost that further minimizes the cost of the initial motion vector. Subsequently, the motion information obtained based on the second cost value is further refined to obtain a final motion vector. Furthermore, paragraph 139 of Chen provides more detail on how the cost value is calculate and mentions that the calculation of matching cost is different at different steps. First, a matching cost is calculated to select the best candidate form candidate set at the CU level, which is the absolute sum difference (SAD) of bilateral matching or template matching. Then, after the starting MV is determined, the matching cost C may be calculated using equation (2). Thus, two different matching costs are calculated for the same MV. Therefore, Examiner believes that Chen has fully addressed the initial cost value and the updated cost value of the starting MV disclosed in claim 1, and claim 1 remains rejected.
Claims 1-18 remain rejected since the system disclosed by the applicant is taught by the prior arts.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2018/0359483 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses: A method of video decoding (see Fig. 25), comprising:
deriving, by a decoder, an initial motion vector (MV) of a current block (see paragraph 120, an initial motion vector (a starting MV) is derived);
determining, by the decoder, a cost value for the initial MV (see paragraph 120, minimum matching cost selected as a starting point for further CU level refinement);
obtaining, by the decoder, an updated cost value for the initial MV by decreasing the cost value for the initial MV (see paragraph 120, a local search based on bilateral matching or template matching around the starting point is performed and the MV that results in the minimum matching cost is taken as the MV for the whole CU, also see paragraph 139, the calculation of matching cost is different at different steps. First, a matching cost is calculated to select the best candidate from candidate set at the CU level, once the starting MV is determined, the matching cost C is calculated); and
deriving, by the decoder, a refined MV based on the updated cost value (see paragraph 120, the motion information is further refined at the sub-CU level with the derived CU motion vectors as the starting points).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein decreasing the cost value for the initial MV comprises:
decreasing the cost value for the initial MV by a first value determined using a predefined process (see Chen, paragraph 139).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the first value is determined as 1/N of the cost value for the initial MV, N being an integer value (see Chen, paragraph 162).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the first value is determined as a constant value (see Chen, paragraph 162).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the first value is determined according to coded information in the current block, the coded information comprising at least one or a combination of: coding block size, magnitude of motion vectors, a sum of absolute differences (SAD) for the initial MV, and relative position of a decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process unit (see Chen, paragraph 139, 144, and 162).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses: The method of claim 5, wherein the first value is determined as 1/N of the cost value for the initial MV, N being an integer value derived based on a block size of the current block (see Chen, paragraph 162).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses: The method of claim 5, wherein the first value is determined as 1/N of the cost value for the initial MV, N being an integer value derived based on a distance between a center position of the DMVR process unit and a center position of the current block (see Chen, paragraph 180).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein deriving the refined MV comprises:
deriving the refined MV through a fractional sample refinement (see Chen, paragraph 139);
wherein the fractional sample refinement is simplified by removing comparison between sadMinus and sadCenter and comparison between sadPlus and sadCenter (see Chen, paragraph 157-162);
wherein sadMinus represents a value of E(-1,0) or E(0,-1), sadPlus represents a value of E(1,0) or E(0,1), and sadCenter represents a value of E(0,0) (see Chen, paragraph 158), in solving a 2-D parabolic equation:
E(x, y) = A(X — Xmin)2 + B(Y — Ymin)2+ C.
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein deriving the refined MV comprises:
deriving the refined MV a fractional sample refinement (see Chen, paragraph 139);
wherein the fractional sample refinement is simplified by limiting a fractional position to -4 or 4 for corner cases with 1/16th-pel MV accuracy, and by reducing an iteration count to 2 in a division-free equation solver (see Chen, Fig. 16 and paragraph 162).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the cost value is a sum of absolute differences (SADs) (see Chen, paragraph 143).
Regarding claims 11-14, claims 11-14 are drawn to an apparatus having limitations similar to the methods claimed in claims 1-3 and 10 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, apparatus claims 11-14 correspond to method claims 1-3 and 10 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claims 15-18, claims 15-18 are drawn to a computer readable storage medium having limitations similar to the methods claimed in claims 1-3 and 10 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, CRM claims 15-18 correspond to method claims 1-3 and 10 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM A NASRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7158. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-8:00 M-T.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 5712727383. 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.
/MARYAM A NASRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483