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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/25 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,566. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application are broader than the one in the Patent. For example:
U.S. Patent No. 11,902,566
Instant Application: 18/420942
1. A method performed by a decoder, the method comprising:
1. A method performed by a decoder, the method comprising:
obtaining a current inter block and a plurality of previously decoded inter blocks, each inter block of the plurality of inter blocks including a motion vector having a resolution; and
obtaining a current inter block and a plurality of previously decoded inter blocks, each inter block of the plurality of inter blocks including a motion vector having a resolution; and
generating a list of motion vector predictor candidates that is used to predict the motion vector that is associated with the current inter block, wherein generating the list of motion vector predictor candidates comprises:
generating a list of motion vector predictor candidates that is used to predict the motion vector that is associated with the current inter block, wherein generating the list of motion vector predictor candidates comprises:
defining a set of inter blocks that includes a number of previously decoded inter blocks;
defining a set of inter blocks that includes a number of previously decoded inter blocks;
scanning the inter blocks in the set of inter blocks in a scanning order; and
scanning the inter blocks in the set of inter blocks in a scanning order; and
for each of the inter blocks in the set of inter blocks:
deriving a motion vector prediction candidate using the motion vector of the inter block; determining whether a criterion relating to one or both of the inter block and the current inter block is satisfied, wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to the inter block being from a different picture than a picture that includes the current inter block and
a resolution of the motion vector prediction candidate exceeding a resolution threshold; and
for each of the inter blocks in the set of inter blocks:
deriving a motion vector prediction candidate using the motion vector of the inter block;
determining, based on at least one characteristic of the motion vector or the inter block, whether a criterion relating to one or both of the inter block and the current inter block is satisfied, wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to at least one of:
the inter block being from a different picture than a picture that includes the current inter block;
a resolution of the motion vector prediction candidate exceeding a resolution threshold; and
the motion vector prediction candidate of the inter block being included in a history based motion vector prediction, HMVP, table; and
either:
responsive to determining that the criterion is satisfied, adding the motion vector prediction candidate to the list of motion vector prediction candidates without performing a motion vector comparison operation with existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates corresponding to the current inter block; or
either:
responsive to determining that the criterion is satisfied, adding the motion vector prediction candidate to the list of motion vector prediction candidates without performing a motion vector comparison operation with existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates corresponding to the current inter block; or
responsive to determining that the criterion is not satisfied, performing the motion vector comparison operation to compare the motion vector prediction candidate with the existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates corresponding to the current inter block.
responsive to determining that the criterion is not satisfied, performing the motion vector comparison operation to compare the motion vector prediction candidate with the existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates corresponding to the current inter block.
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(s) 1-10, 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0359483 A1 (“Chen”) in view of US 2021/0203922 A1 (“Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method performed by a decoder, the method comprising:
obtaining a current inter block and a plurality of previously decoded inter blocks (e.g. see current block in Fig. 2 and its spatial and temporal neighboring blocks), each inter block of the plurality of inter blocks including a motion vector (e.g. see motion vectors, paragraphs [0177]-[0179]) having a resolution (e.g. see MV resolution, e.g. see at least paragraph [0171]); and
generating a list of motion vector predictor candidates that is used to predict the motion vector that is associated with the current inter block (e.g. see global MV candidate list, e.g. see at least paragraph [0189]), wherein generating the list of motion vector predictor candidates comprises:
defining a set of inter blocks that includes a number of previously decoded inter blocks (e.g. see NA-SMVPs together with other MV predictors, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0102], [0177] and Fig. 2; and also see paragraphs [0181]-[0182] and [0189] and Fig. 15-16);
scanning the inter blocks in the set of inter blocks in a scanning order (e.g. see order, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0102], [0182], [0189]); and for each of the inter blocks in the set of inter blocks:
deriving a motion vector prediction candidate using the motion vector of the inter block (e.g. see constructing a global MV candidate list by inserting MVs derived from adjacent blocks as well as the MVs derived from non-adjacent blocks from which an MV predictor of the current block is derived, e.g. see at least paragraph [0189]).
Although Chen discloses that a full motion pruning process (in which one candidate is compared against all the previously derived candidates in the current candidate list) or a partial motion pruning (in which to reduce complexity, only limited numbers of candidates is/are compared instead of comparing each potential candidate with all the other existing candidates) can be applied (e.g. see at least paragraph [0201]), it is noted Chen differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose
determining, based on at least one characteristic of the motion vector or the inter block, whether a criterion relating to one or both of the inter block and the current inter block is satisfied, wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to at least one of:
the inter block being from a different picture than a picture that includes the current inter block;
a resolution of the motion vector prediction candidate exceeding a resolution threshold; and
the motion vector prediction candidate of the inter block being included in a history based motion vector prediction, HMVP, table; and either:
responsive to determining that the criterion is satisfied, adding the motion vector prediction candidate to the list of motion vector prediction candidates without performing a motion vector comparison operation with existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates corresponding to the current inter block; or
responsive to determining that the criterion is not satisfied, performing the motion vector comparison operation to compare the motion vector prediction candidate with the existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates corresponding to the current inter block.
Zhang however, teaches
determining, based on at least one characteristic of the motion vector or the inter block (e.g. see types or kinds of motion vector candidates, paragraphs [0109]-[0110], [0403], [0406]-[0407], [0413]), whether a criterion relating to one or both of the inter block and the current inter block is satisfied, wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to at least one of:
the inter block being from a different picture than a picture that includes the current inter block;
a resolution of the motion vector prediction candidate exceeding a resolution threshold; and
the motion vector prediction candidate of the inter block being included in a history based motion vector prediction, HMVP, table (e.g. see HMVP candidates are determined, paragraphs [0403], [0406]-[0407]; and see at least motion candidates classified to different categories with different pruning methods based on associated index and/or based on the number of available motion candidates in the list before adding a new one, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0375]-[0377]; also see, the above methods may be only applicable to HMVP candidates, paragraphs [0408]-[0413]; thus, when HMVP candidates are determined, the HMVP candidates are responded to by categorizing them to different pruning methods based on their associated index, for example, if the index assigned to the HMVP candidates are within a range [K1 + 1, N], no pruning is applied; and/or based on the number of available motion candidates in the list before adding a new one); and either:
responsive to determining that the criterion is satisfied, adding the motion vector prediction candidate to the list of motion vector prediction candidates without performing a motion vector comparison operation with existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates corresponding to the current inter block (e.g. see at least for the remaining index idx (i.e., within a range [K1 + 1, N]), no pruning is applied, that is, MCandidx directly added, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0379]-[0380], [0388]; note although not mapped for conciseness, partial pruning for index [K0+1, K1] for example also meets the limitations because not all candidates within this interval are going to be compared to all the candidates in the list before adding in a partial pruning process); or
responsive to determining that the criterion is not satisfied, performing the motion vector comparison operation to compare the motion vector prediction candidate with the existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates corresponding to the current inter block (e.g. see at least index idx within a range [StartIdx, K0], full pruning is applied when adding MCandidx, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0379]-[0380], [0384]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Chen and Zhang before him/her, to modify the motion vector prediction of Chen with Zhang in order to improve the quality of decoded digital video or images.
Regarding claim 2, Chen further discloses further comprising:
responsive to performing the motion vector comparison operation, determining that the motion vector prediction candidate does not match any of the existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates (e.g. see pruning process by removing from the candidate list duplicated candidates having the same motion parameters as the previous candidate in the processing order, e.g. see at least paragraph [0106], to avoid inserting identical candidate, e.g. see at least paragraph [0201]); and
responsive to determining that the motion vector prediction candidate does not match any of the existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates, adding the motion vector prediction candidate to the list of motion vector prediction candidates (e.g. see pruning process by removing from the candidate list duplicated candidates having the same motion parameters as the previous candidate in the processing order, e.g. see at least paragraph [0106], to avoid inserting identical candidate, e.g. see at least paragraph [0201]).
Regarding claim 3, Chen further discloses further comprising:
responsive to performing the motion vector comparison operation, determining that the motion vector prediction candidate matches one of the existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates (e.g. see pruning process by removing from the candidate list duplicated candidates having the same motion parameters as the previous candidate in the processing order, e.g. see at least paragraph [0106], to avoid inserting identical candidate, e.g. see at least paragraph [0201]); and
responsive to determining that the motion vector prediction candidate matches one of the existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates, not adding the motion vector prediction candidate to the list of motion vector prediction candidates (e.g. see pruning process by removing from the candidate list duplicated candidates having the same motion parameters as the previous candidate in the processing order, e.g. see at least paragraph [0106], to avoid inserting identical candidate, e.g. see at least paragraph [0201]).
Regarding claim 4, Chen further discloses wherein the set of inter blocks that includes the number of previously decoded inter blocks comprises inter blocks that are in a current picture (e.g. see spatial neighboring blocks in Fig. 2 and also see non-adjacent blocks in Fig. 15-16).
Regarding claim 5, Chen further discloses wherein the set of inter blocks that includes the number of previously decoded inter blocks comprises inter blocks that are in a previously decoded picture (e.g. see temporal MVPs, e.g. see at least paragraph [0200]).
Regarding claim 6, Chen further discloses further comprising: determining a resolution of the current inter block; and responsive to the resolution of the current inter block being different from a resolution of the motion vector prediction candidate, performing a conversion of the motion vector prediction candidate to match the resolution of the current inter block (e.g. see rounding MVPs to corresponding precision of CU, e.g. see at least paragraph [0171]).
Regarding claim 7, Chen further discloses further comprising:
responsive to generating the list of motion vector predictor candidates, decoding video data that includes a video sequence of a plurality of pictures based on generating the list of motion vector predictor candidates that is used to predict the motion vector that is associated with the current inter block (e.g. see video decoder 30 in Fig. 25).
Regarding claim 8, Chen in view of Zhang further teaches wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to the inter block being spatially non-adjacent the current inter block, the method further comprising:
responsive to determining that the criterion is satisfied based on the inter block being non-adjacent the current inter block, adding the motion vector prediction candidate to the list of motion vector prediction candidates without performing a comparison with existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates (Chen: e.g. see NA-SMVPs, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0102], [0177] and Fig. 2; and also see paragraphs [0181]-[0182] and [0189] and Fig. 15-16 and see Zhang: e.g. see at least motion candidates classified to different categories with different pruning methods based on associated index and/or based on the number of available motion candidates in the list before adding a new one, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0375]-[0377]; also see, the above methods may be only applicable to HMVP candidates, paragraphs [0408]-[0413]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 9, Chen in view of Zhang further teaches further teaches wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to the inter block having a spatial distance from the current inter block that exceeds a spatial distance threshold, the method further comprising:
responsive to determining that the criterion is satisfied based on the spatial distance between the inter block and the current inter block exceeding a spatial distance threshold, adding the motion vector prediction candidate to the list of motion vector prediction candidates without performing a comparison with existing motion vector prediction candidates that are in the list of motion vector prediction candidates (e.g. see limitations “wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to at least one of:” in claim 1; since Chen in view of Zhang meet one of the list for determining the criterion and a response, the claim is rejected in the broadest reasonable sense since this criterion would be one of the criterions in the list). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Zhang further teaches wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to any of the components of the motion vector prediction of the current block exceeding a motion vector prediction component threshold (e.g. see limitations “wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to at least one of:” in claim 1; since Chen in view of Zhang meet one of the list for determining the criterion and a response, the claim is rejected in the broadest reasonable sense since this criterion would be one of the criterions in the list). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Zhang further teaches wherein the criterion is at least related to a spatial relationship between the current inter block and the inter block (Zhang: e.g. see Fig. 8 showing derivation process for motion vector candidate that includes spatial candidates, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0112], [0403]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 13, Chen further discloses wherein the scanning order is a decoding order (e.g. see order, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0102], [0182], [0189]; also see scanning blocks according to an order that is opposite an order in which the video coder coded the blocks, e.g. see at least paragraph [0188]).
Regarding claims 14-19, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0359483 A1 (“Chen”) in view of US 2021/0203922 A1 (“Zhang”) in further view of US 2021/0092379 A1 (“Zhang2”).
Regarding claim 11, although Chen in view of Zhang teaches the criterion, it is noted Chen differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to a number of occurrences of a motion vector prediction candidate comparison exceeding a threshold value, the threshold value being less than a size of the list of motion vector prediction candidates. Zhang2 however, teaches wherein the criterion is satisfied responsive to a number of occurrences of a motion vector prediction candidate comparison exceeding a threshold value, the threshold value being less than a size of the list of motion vector prediction candidates (e.g. see number of pruning operations reaches a maximumly allowed value, e.g. K = 5, directly adding to the list without pruning, e.g. see at least paragraph [0438]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Chen, Zhang and Zhang2 before him/her, to incorporate Zhang2 into the motion vector prediction of Chen as modified by Zhang in order to provide higher coding efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 11-12 of the Remarks that the prior art does not teach the limitations “determining, based on at least one characteristic of the motion vector or the inter block, whether a criterion is satisfied” because Zhang merely teaches to determine “whether to apply full pruning, partial pruning, or no pruning solely based on the candidate’s assigned index category or the number of candidates already in the list. Zhang does not evaluate any characteristic of the motion vector of the candidate or any characteristic of the inter block from which the candidate is derived.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the rejection above has been clarified to illustrate that the claims remain unpatentable over Chen in view of Zhang. At least paragraphs [0408]-[0413] of Zhang teach that pruning methods may only be applicable to HMVP candidates. Thus, Zhang teaches to evaluate whether the determined candidate is HMVP or not before applying the pruning methods disclosed in the previous paragraphs, which meet the limitations in the broadest reasonable sense.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zheng et al., US 2021/0021824 A1, discloses method and device for image motion compensation
Zhang et al., US 2020/0374542 A1, discloses partial/full pruning when adding a HMVP candidate to merge/AMVP
Hsiao et al., US 2020/0014931 A1, discloses methods and apparatus of generating an average candidate for inter picture prediction in video coding systems
Chao et al., US 2020/0007889 A1, discloses buffer restriction during motion vector prediction for video coding
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 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, Anna M Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619