DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/04/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On page 2 of the Remarks, Applicant contends that because Zhao teaches increasing an otherwise reduced set of MVP candidates, Zhao is deficient for failing to teach or suggest reducing the number of MVP candidates. Examiner disagrees. As Applicant correctly points out, Zhao teaches that the prior art desired for there to be a reduced set of candidates, perhaps as low as just one additional temporal candidate added to a predictor list. Zhao goes on to teach that other limits can be established and offers an example in which “up to four candidates are identified and added to an MV predictor list.” Further still, Zhao teaches that the additional candidates are considered if the MVP list is not otherwise full. These teachings, when interpreted by one skilled in the art, would lead the skilled artisan to an understanding that both limiting and expanding the DRL is desirable depending on design choice. Indeed, the skilled artisan understands that such design choices of limiting predictors has the benefit of reducing computational complexity, but at the expense of offering fewer choices for the best predictor (thus increasing bit cost). Zhao’s teachings, then, teach or suggest to the skilled artisan both the historical preference of the prior art to reduce candidates and a proposal to increase the number of predictors, or at least fill an otherwise incomplete predictor list with a threshold number of candidates. Furthermore, in teaching a threshold number of candidates, obviously Zhao also teaches pruning or reducing candidates above the threshold down to the threshold. Therefore, because Zhao teaches both increasing and reducing a number of candidates in the DRL, Examiner is unpersuaded that Zhao is deficient for failing to teach reducing the number of motion vector candidates.
Examiner notes the preceding argument was addressed in the preceding Office Action. That response is incorporated below:
On page 3 of the Remarks, Applicant contends that even though Zhao teaches limiting the candidate modes just like Applicant does, because Zhao also teaches filling the list if there are less than the threshold number of candidates present in the list, such additional teaching of Zhao somehow undermines or runs counter to Applicant’s benefits of pruning the number of interframe candidate modes. First, obviously just because Zhao also fills an otherwise limited number of candidates with a threshold number of candidates does not take away from a teaching of a limited number of candidates. Second, Examiner notes that while Applicant’s Remarks focus extensively on the benefits of pruning, Applicant has, by way of the instant amendments, removed all references to the term “pruning” (the term was removed from all 20 claims). To argue that pruning is crucial to achieving the benefits of the invention yet removing all references to pruning in the claims seems more “counterintuitive to the goal of Applicant’s technique” than any teaching of Zhao. Remarks, 3. Because Applicant does not argue that which is claimed, the arguments are unpersuasive of error.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (US 2024/0080451 A1) and Chang (US 2022/0400257 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Zhao and Chang teaches or suggests a method of video encoding comprising: receiving an initial set of interframe candidate modes for encoding a video block, the initial set of interframe candidate modes comprising a first interframe candidate mode, a second interframe candidate mode, and a third interframe candidate mode, wherein the first interframe candidate mode, second interframe candidate mode, and third interframe candidate mode each comprise an interframe mode type, a set of reference frame types, and one or more dynamic reference list (DRL) candidates (Applicant’s ¶ 0069: explains interframe modes include translational motion modes (Applicant’s Table 1), OBMC/warp modes (Applicant’s Table 2), and extended compound modes (Applicant’s Table 3); Zhao, ¶ 0118: teaches the list of motion vector predictors is referred to as a dynamic reference list (DRL); Zhao, Tables 3 and 4: describe interframe mode types that utilize an indexed DRL of candidates; Zhao, ¶ 0095: teaches Applicant’s reference frame types, i.e. in addition to a single reference frame, either the two reference frames are both on the same side of the current frame, or each reference frame is on different sides of the current frame; Zhao, ¶ 0118: teaches the list of motion vector predictors is referred to as a dynamic reference list (DRL) and can be sorted and ranked up to a maximum number of four candidates and wherein certain mode types are excluded when the list is full, such as combined compound modes, global modes, etc.; Zhao, ¶ 0126: explains the MVP list is constructed in a particular order with pruning and while excluding certain candidates); generating, based on one or more criteria, a reduced set of candidate modes comprising the first interframe candidate mode and the second interframe candidate mode, wherein the reduced set of candidate modes does not include the third interframe candidate mode (Applicant’s ¶¶ 0073–0074: explains the pruning process can be ranking or ordering translational mode types or excluding candidates having a motion vector difference (MVD) below a threshold; Zhao, ¶ 0118: teaches the list of motion vector predictors is referred to as a dynamic reference list (DRL) and can be sorted and ranked; Zhao, ¶ 0126: teaches pruning the motion vector predictor candidate list by ordering the candidates and by limiting certain types of candidates; Chang, ¶ 0094: teaches pruning motion vector candidate lists based on motion vector difference being below a threshold; Zhao, ¶ 0134: teaches TMVP candidates can be pruned based on frequency of use during encoding and decoding); determining a first rate distortion (RD) cost for the first interframe candidate mode and a second RD cost for the second interframe candidate mode (Chang, ¶ 0118: teaches that modes are selected on the best rate-distortion cost); selecting, based on a determination that the first RD cost is lower than the second RD cost, the first interframe candidate mode (Chang, ¶ 0118: teaches that modes are selected on the best rate-distortion cost); and encoding the video block using the first interframe candidate mode (Zhao, ¶ 0006: teaches encoding a block using inter prediction).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Zhao, with those of Chang, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the state-of-the-art video coding standard would be led to their relevant teachings regarding motion vector prediction and because Chang is merely explaining in more detail what Zhao means by pruning motion vector predictors in a candidate list. Therefore, the combination is nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhao and Chang used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhao and Chang teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein generating the reduced set of interframe candidate modes comprises excluding at least one interframe mode type based on an ordered list of interframe mode types (Applicant’s ¶ 0077: teaches mode types can be excluded by ranking/ordering the mode types and specifically explains excluding extended compound mode types is one example; Zhao, ¶ 0118: teaches the list of motion vector predictors is referred to as a dynamic reference list (DRL) and can be sorted and ranked up to a maximum number of four candidates and wherein certain mode types are excluded when the list is full, such as combined compound modes, global modes, etc.; Zhao, ¶¶ 0126–0128: explains the slots available for MVP candidates can be limited to four, which would mean several interframe mode types would be excluded by the priority rules).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhao and Chang teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein generating the reduced set of interframe candidate modes comprises excluding at least one interframe mode type and reducing a number of DRL candidates based on a difference between two motion vectors (Chang, ¶ 0094: teaches pruning motion vector candidate lists based on motion vector difference being below a threshold).
Claim 9 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 3, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 12 lists the same elements as claim 4, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 15 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists the same elements as claim 3, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 4, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claims 2, 5, 10, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Chang, and Zhang (US 2023/0107111 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhao, Chang, and Zhang teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein generating the reduced set of interframe candidate modes further comprises reducing a number of reference frame types (Zhang, ¶ 0074: teaches generating a reference frame mask which indicates a historically optimal reference frame type and uses that optimal reference frame for the preset prediction mode; Zhao, ¶ 0127: teaches or suggests using only a single preselected reference picture for reference MV bank additions to the MVP list) and reducing a number of DRL candidates (Chang, ¶ 0094: teaches pruning motion vector candidate lists based on motion vector difference being below a threshold).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Zhao and Chang, with those of Zhang, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the state-of-the-art video coding standard would be led to their relevant teachings regarding motion vector prediction and because Zhang explains reducing the number of combinations of prediction mode and reference frame type can greatly reduce calculation complexity and improve coding efficiency by eliminating some of the combinations (e.g. ¶ 0011). Therefore, the combination is nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhao, Chang, and Zhang used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhao, Chang, and Zhang teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein generating the reduced set of interframe candidate modes comprises excluding at least one interframe mode type based on a difference between a source for the video block and a prediction for the video block, wherein the prediction is based on a respective interframe mode type (Applicant’s ¶ 0075: Examiner interprets this limitation as saying motion vector magnitude greater than a threshold can be used to exclude candidate mode; Zhang, ¶ 0051: teaches sorting the MVs according to importance).
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 2, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 16 lists the same elements as claim 2, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claims 6, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Chang, and Zhao (US 2022/0014795 A1) (herein “Zhao ‘795”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhao, Chang, and Zhao ‘795 teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein generating the reduced set of interframe candidate modes comprises excluding at least one interframe mode type based on one or more of RD costs for single-reference interframe candidate modes or block size for the video block (Zhao ‘795, ¶ 0029: teaches compound mode not allowed for CU sizes greater than 128x128).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Zhao and Chang, with those of Zhao ‘795, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the state-of-the-art video coding standard would be led to their relevant teachings regarding motion vector prediction and because Zhao ‘795 explains reducing prediction modes can reduce calculation complexity and improve coding efficiency. Therefore, the combination is nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhao, Chang, and Zhao ‘795 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Chang, and Zhao (US 2023/0179763 A1) (herein “Zhao ‘763”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhao, Chang, and Zhao ‘763 teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein generating the reduced set of interframe candidate modes further comprises reducing a number of combinations based on a cost metric from fractional motion estimation (Zhao ‘763, ¶¶ 0230–0233: teaches using less than the full set of interpolation filters when fractional MVD is not allowed).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Zhao and Chang, with those of Zhao ‘763, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the state-of-the-art video coding standard would be led to their relevant teachings regarding motion vector prediction and because Zhao ‘763 explains reducing prediction modes can reduce calculation complexity and improve coding efficiency. Therefore, the combination is nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhao, Chang, and Zhao ‘763 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao, Chang, and Zhang (US 2023/0232020 A1) (herein “Zhang ‘020”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Zhao, Chang, and Zhang ‘020 teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein generating the reduced set of interframe candidate modes further comprises bypassing an interpolation filter selection stage and using a predetermined filter (Zhang ‘020, ¶¶ 0003–0005: teaches simplifying the computational complexity of calculating RDO for each possible combination of MVP, interpolation method, and motion mode; Zhang ‘020, ¶ 0187: teaches the three interpolation methods of regular, smooth, and sharp and de-duplicating and sorting MVPs (¶ 0042)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Zhao and Chang, with those of Zhang ‘020, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the state-of-the-art video coding standard would be led to their relevant teachings regarding motion vector prediction and because Zhang ‘020 explains reducing prediction modes can reduce calculation complexity and improve coding efficiency. Therefore, the combination is nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhao, Chang, and Zhang ‘020 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gao (US 2024/0022756 A1) teaches pruning using an ordering process for checking multiple neighboring block warp models (¶ 0092).
Lin (US 2020/0059651 A1) teaches affine pruning (¶¶ 0073–0086) and specifically teaches if the MVD is smaller than a threshold, the to-be-added MVP will be pruned (¶ 0083).
Zhang (US 2023/0232020 A1) teaches the three interpolation methods of regular, smooth, and sharp (¶ 0187) and de-duplicating and sorting MVPs (¶ 0042). It also teaches simplifying the computational complexity of calculating RDO for each possible combination of MVP, interpolation method, and motion mode (¶¶ 0003–0005).
Zhao (US 2023/0179763 A1) teaches using less than the full set of interpolation filters when fractional MVD is not allowed (¶¶ 0230–0233).
Zhao (US 2022/0014795 A1) teaches compound mode not allowed for CU sizes greater than 128x128 (¶ 0029).
Zhang (US 2023/0107111 A1) teaches compulsorily eliminating interframe candidate modes (¶ 0072).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL J. HESS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/MICHAEL J HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481