DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 04/28/2026 in which claims 3, 11, and 17 are cancelled, 1, 9, and 15 are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Zhao is deficient because while Zhao teaches excluding or reducing motion vector predictor candidates, it does not teach reducing interframe candidate modes as a result of ordering the candidate mode types themselves. Examiner disagrees. As explained in the rejection, infra, Zhao’s paragraph [0118] teaches the list of motion vector predictors is referred to as a dynamic reference list (DRL) and can, for example, be sorted and ranked up to a maximum number of four candidates wherein certain mode types are excluded when the list is full, such as combined compound modes, global modes, etc. Zhao’s paragraphs [0126]–[0128] explain 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. Because the candidate predictions have associated with them particular modes and because the mode type is part of the rank/ordering process, the prior art’s teachings match the recited feature. Thus, the claimed features are taught by the prior art and are thus unpatentable.
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, 4, 9, 12, 15, 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), wherein generating the reduced set of interframe candidate modes comprises excluding at least one interframe mode type based on a list of interframe mode types ordered relative to one another (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); 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 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 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 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).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached 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 571-273-8933.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights