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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 67-86. New claim 87 has been added. Claims 67, 69, 74, 76, 77, 80, 81, and 83-86 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 67-87 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 69-71; 73-74; 76-78; 80-81; and 83-84, applicant argues that the amendments to these claims address and overcome the indefiniteness 112 rejection below. However, examine respectfully disagrees. The amendments to these claims do nothing to address the issues raised in the 112 rejection below. Accordingly, these claims still generally recite a long list of many alternative limitations as using the disjunctive logical connector “or” and do not clearly lay out which of these long lists of alternative embodiments constitute patentable subject matter. Thus, these claims include or depend on claims that are omnibus type claims. Applicant is still required to amend to more particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 67, Applicant argues that Chen et al. fails to teach “wherein prediction samples of at least one of the two target blocks are adjusted, the cost is determined based on the adjusted prediction samples”. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 50, Chen et al. teaches “FIGS. 5A and 5B are conceptual diagrams illustrating an example of bilateral template matching. Bilateral matching is a variant of DMVR techniques that may avoid the template-based refinement process. This technique computes the bilateral matching cost directly between the uni-prediction reference blocks (denoted as I.sub.0(x+v.sub.0) and I.sub.1(x+v.sub.1) and x as the coordinate of a pixel within the current block) pointed to by the initial bi-prediction MVs (e.g., v.sub.0 and v.sub.1 in FIGS. 5A and 5B). A local search is performed based on bilateral matching within a pre-defined search range around the initial bi-prediction MVs. Specifically, supposing the initial MVs are v.sub.0.sup.(0) and v.sub.1.sup.(0), at the first search iteration, several MV pairs (e.g., v.sub.0.sup.(0)+Δ and v.sub.1.sup.(0)−Δ where Δ∈{(0,0), (−1,1), (0,1), (1,1), (1,0), (1,−1), (0,−1), (−1,−1), (−1,0), and so on}) and find out the optimal Δ* which can lead to the lowest bilateral matching cost. In this contribution, the cost function is defined as the distortion between I.sub.0(x+v.sub.0.sup.(0)+Δ) and I.sub.1(x+v.sub.1.sup.(0)−Δ) plus motion cost. The distortion function can be either a sum of absolute difference (SAD) or Mean Removed SAD (MRSAD).” In Paragraph 51, Chen et al. teaches “After the optimal Δ* is found, the iteration process updates the initial MVs (v.sub.0.sup.(0) and v.sub.1.sup.(0) by using Δ*. Specifically, we have v.sub.0.sup.(1)=v.sub.0.sup.(0)+Δ* and v.sub.1.sup.(1)=v.sub.1.sup.(0)−Δ*. Then, after advancing all the superscripts in the above description by 1, the same iteration process repeats until Δ* is equal to (0,0) is reached. The output MV pair (denoted as v.sub.0.sup.(n) and v.sub.1.sup.(n), n≥1) may be then refined again at sub-pel precision. The resulting MV par is then taken to replace the original MVs (v.sub.0.sup.(0) and v.sub.1.sup.(0)) of the merge block. At last, motion compensation is performed based on the refined MVs (e.g., v.sub.0′ and v.sub.1′ in FIG. 5B).” In Paragraph 52, Chen et al. teaches “In JVET-K0041, a quadratic parametric function is used to form a prediction error surface for each possible fractional-pel MV. Basically, it is an interpolation function which interpolates the value of prediction errors as estimators. Based on the exact prediction error values from integer search, parameters of the quadratic parametric function are derived, and thus the best motion sampling location on this error search can be found. Then, the original MVs are adjusted to this exact motion sampling location, instead of actually performing sub-pel motion vector estimation. This parametric function takes the cost values from 5 points as reference to form an error surface and find the best position with the lowest cost value on this surface. The 5 points form a cross shape and the gap between each two adjacent points is of 2 pixels, where center/left/right/top/bottom point is coordinated at (0,0)/(−1,0)/(1,0)/(0,−1)/(0,1).” In Paragraph 57, it teaches “FIG. 6 is a conceptual diagram illustrating an example pipeline of stages for decoder-side motion vector derivation (DMVD). For a block coded using DMVD, the decoding process can be interpreted in three steps: (1) reconstruction of initial motion field and prefetching reference blocks; (2) refinement process for block motions to get final MVs; and (3) motion compensation with final MVs.” In Paragraph 76, Chen et al. further teaches “This disclosure recognizes that DMVD-related methods (PMMVD, Bilateral Template Matching, Decoder-side MV Refinement and so on) provide significant coding performance improvements. Some of these existing technologies have further solved the inter-dependency issue (also known as a decoding latency issue) partially or completely (at the cost of coding efficiency) between decoder-side MV derivation process and spatial MV prediction. Also, the same decoding latency issue also occurs in many application scenarios when DMVR is involved in BIO, history-based merge candidates, and affine merge candidates. However, certain use cases should be specified regarding 1) how refined MVs can be used and 2) how refined MVs can be replaced when they are inaccessible. Moreover, the current design of GBi, Weighted-bi prediction, MMVR, Merge Offset Extension, and DMVR padding processes can be improved to make the most of DMVR to reduce memory buffer size and computational complexity. The techniques of this disclosure may address these and other concerns, thereby improving the technical field of video coding (encoding and/or decoding), as well as improving devices that perform video coding, such as video encoders and video decoders.” All of this clearly and unambiguously teaches performing adjustments on data and then evaluating costs based on adjusted data. The above teachings are interpreted to meet the claim limitations as filed.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 69-71; 73-74; 76-78; 80-81; and 83-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 69-71; 73-74; 76-78; 80-81; and 83-84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that they consistently fail to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Broadly, many of these claims generally recite a long list of many alternative limitations as using the disjunctive logical connector “or” and does not clearly lay out which of these long lists of alternative embodiments constitute patentable subject matter. Thus, these claims include or depend on claims that are omnibus type claims. Applicant is required to amend to more particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 67-87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20200169748 A1).
Regarding Claim 67, Chen et al. teaches a method for video processing (Abstract), comprising:
determining a cost during a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (Paragraphs 50-56);
refining coding data of the current video block based on the cost and two target blocks of the video (Paragraphs 45-56); and
performing the conversion based on the refined coding data (Paragraph 79),
wherein the cost indicates a degree of distortion between the two target blocks and an amount of information for refinement of the coding data of the current video block (Paragraphs 50-56), or
wherein prediction samples of at least one of the two target blocks are adjusted, the cost is determined based on the adjusted prediction samples, and the cost indicates at least a degree of distortion between the two target blocks (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 57-64 Paragraph 76).
Regarding Claim 68, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 67, wherein determining the cost comprises: determining an error item indicating the degree of distortion between the two target blocks; determining a regulation item indicating the amount of the information for the refinement of the coding data; and determining the cost based on the error item and the regulation item (Paragraphs 45-56).
Regarding Claim 69, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 68, wherein determining the cost based on the error item and the regulation item comprises: determining, as the cost, a weighted sum of the error item and the regulation item; or wherein determining the regulation item comprises: determining, as the regulation item, a number of bits used for coding a motion vector (MV) or motion vector difference (MVD) for the refinement of the coding data based on the two target blocks; or wherein a weight for the regulation item depends on quantization parameter (QP) or temporal layer; or wherein a weight for the regulation item is determined on-the-fly or based on a lambda used in a rate distortion optimization (RDO) process; or wherein determining the error item comprises: determining, as the error item, a sum of absolute difference (SAD) or a mean removal sum of absolute difference (MR-SAD) between the two target blocks; or wherein an error metric for determining the error item comprises at least one of the following: sum of absolute transformed difference (SATD), mean removal sum of absolute transformed difference (MR-SATD), gradient information, sum of squared error (SSE), mean removal sum of squared error (MR-SSE), sum of squared difference (SSD), mean removal sum of squared difference (MR-SSD), weighted SAD, weighted MR-SAD, weighted SATD, weighted MR-SATD, weighted SSD, weighted MR-SSD, weighted SSE, or weighted MR-SSE; or wherein an error metric for determining the error item is selected from SAD, MR-SAD, SATD, MR-SATD, gradient information, SSE, MR-SSE, SSD, MR-SSD, weighted SAD, weighted MR-SAD, weighted SATD, weighted MR-SATD, weighted SSD, weighted MR-SSD, weighted SSE, and weighted MR-SSE; or wherein determining the error item comprises: determining a mean based on a first set of samples in a first target block of the two target blocks; obtaining a set of mean removal samples by removing the mean from each sample in a second set of samples in the first target block; and determining the error item based on the set of mean removal samples (Paragraphs 45-56).
Regarding Claim 70, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 69, wherein the weight for the regulation item is determined based on the lambda used in the RDO process, and the weight for the regulation item equals to the lambda or a square root of the lambda; or wherein the first set of samples comprise all samples in the first target block; or wherein the first set of samples comprise a part of samples in the first target block; or wherein the first set of samples are the same as the second set of samples; or wherein the first set of samples are different from the second set of samples (Paragraphs 73-76).
Regarding Claim 71, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 70, wherein the first set of samples comprise all samples in the first target block, and the second set of samples comprise a part of samples in the first target block; or the first set of samples comprise a part of the samples in the first target block, and the second set of samples comprise all samples in the first target block (Paragraph 92).
Regarding Claim 72, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 67, further comprising: updating the cost by adjusting the cost with a cost factor; or wherein the coding data is refined based on a template matching refinement process or a bilateral matching refinement process (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76; Paragraphs 126-128).
Regarding Claim 73, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 72, wherein the two target blocks are associated with a target motion candidate in a motion candidate list for the current video block, and updating the cost comprises: determining the cost factor based on a position of the target motion candidate in the motion candidate list; and adjusting the cost with the cost factor to update the cost; or wherein the two target blocks are associated with a searching MV for the refinement of an original MV of the current video block, and updating the cost comprises: determining the cost factor based on a relative distance between the searching MV and the original MV, a cost factor for a first relative distance being smaller than a cost factor for a second relative distance which is larger than the first relative distance; and adjusting the cost with the cost factor to update the cost; or wherein the template matching refinement process is one of: template matching based motion candidate reordering, template matching based motion derivation, template matching based motion refinement, template matching based block vector derivation, or template matching based intra mode derivation (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76; Paragraphs 126-128).
Regarding Claim 74, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 73, wherein the cost factor for the target motion candidate is smaller than a cost factor for a motion candidate ranked after the target motion candidate in the motion candidate list; or the cost factor for the target motion candidate in a first motion candidate group is smaller than a cost factor for a motion candidate in a second motion candidate group, the second motion candidate group being ranked after the first motion candidate group in the motion candidate list; or wherein the relative distance equals to a distance between the searching MV and the original MV or a distance between the original MV and a search region where the searching MV is located (Paragraphs 33-38; Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76).
Regarding Claim 75, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 67, wherein the coding data is refined based on a template matching refinement process, and the cost is determined differently for different template matching refinement processes (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76).
Regarding Claim 76, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 75, wherein the two target blocks comprise a current template and a reference template, determining the cost comprises: determining the cost based on SAD, MR-SAD, SATD, MR-SATD, SSD or MR-SSD between the current template and the reference template; or wherein the two target blocks comprise a current template and a reference template, determining the cost comprises: determining a target error metric from a predefined error metric and a mean removal version of the predefined error metric based on a size of the current video block or a local illumination compensation (LIC) flag of the current video block, the predefined error metric being SAD, SATD or SSD; and determining the cost based on the target error metric between the current template and the reference template; or wherein the two target blocks comprise a current template and a reference template, determining the cost comprises: determining the cost based on weighted SAD, weighted MR-SAD, weighted SATD, weighted MR-SATD, weighted SSD or weighted MR-SSD between the current template and the reference template; or wherein the two target blocks comprise a current template and a reference template, determining the cost comprises: determining a target error metric from a predefined error metric and a mean removal version of the predefined error metric based on a size of the current video block or a local illumination compensation (LIC) flag of the current video block, the predefined error metric being weighted SAD, weighted SATD or weighted SSD; and determining the cost based on the target error metric between the current template and the reference template; or wherein determining the cost comprises: determining an error item indicating the degree of distortion between the two target blocks; determining a regulation item indicating an amount of motion information for the refinement of the coding data; and determining, as the cost, a weighted sum of the error item and the regulation item; or wherein the two target blocks comprise a current template and a reference template, the cost further indicates a continuity between the reference template and reconstructed samples neighboring to the current template (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76).
Regarding Claim 77, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 76, wherein if the size of the current video block is larger than a threshold, or if the LIC flag of the current video block is true, the target error metric is the mean removal version of the predefined error metric; and if the size of the current video block is smaller than or equal to the threshold, or if the LIC flag of the current video block is false, the target error metric is the predefined error metric; or wherein if the size of the current video block is larger than a threshold, or if the LIC flag of the current video block is true, the target error metric is the mean removal version of the predefined error metric; and if the size of the current video block is smaller than or equal to the threshold, or if the LIC flag of the current video block is false, the target error metric is the predefined error metric; or wherein determining the cost based on weighted SAD, weighted MR-SAD, weighted SATD, weighted MR-SATD, weighted SSD or weighted MR-SSD between the current template and the reference template comprises: determining a difference between a first current sample in the current template and a corresponding first reference sample in the reference template; and applying a weight to the difference based on one of: row and column indices of the first current sample in the current template, a position of the first current sample in the current template, or a distance between the first current sample and the current video block; or wherein an error metric for determining the error item comprises: at least one of the following: SAD, MR-SAD, SATD, MR-SATD, SSD, MR-SSD, weighted SAD, weighted MR-SAD, weighted SATD, weighted MR-SATD, weighted SSD, or weighted MR-SSD; or wherein determining the regulation item comprises: determining a MVD between a searching MV and a starting MV of the current video block; and determining, as the regulation item, a sum of an absolute horizontal component of the MVD and an absolute vertical component of the MVD; or wherein at least one weight for the weighted sum is predefined or indicated in the bitstream or determined based on coded information; or wherein determining the cost comprises: determining an error item indicating the degree of distortion between the two target blocks; determining a boundary error item indicating differences between the reference template and the reconstructed samples neighboring to the current template; and determining, as the cost, a weighted sum of the error item and the boundary error item (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76).
Regarding Claim 78, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 77, wherein at least one weight for the weighted sum is predefined or indicated in the bitstream or determined based on coded information (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76; Paragraph 126).
Regarding Claim 79, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 67, wherein the coding data is refined based on a bilateral matching refinement process, and the cost is determined differently for different bilateral matching refinement processes (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76; Paragraph 126).
Regarding Claim 80, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 79, wherein the bilateral matching refinement process is one of: bilateral matching based motion candidate reordering, bilateral matching based motion derivation, bilateral matching based motion refinement, bilateral matching based block vector derivation, or bilateral matching based intra mode derivation; or wherein the two target blocks comprise a first reference block and a second reference block, determining the cost comprises: determining the cost based on SAD, MR-SAD, SATD, MR-SATD, SSD or MR-SSD between the first reference block and the second reference block; or wherein the two target blocks comprise a first reference block and a second reference block, determining the cost comprises: determining a target error metric from a predefined error metric and a mean removal version of the predefined error metric based on a size of the current video block or a local illumination compensation (LIC) flag of the current video block, the predefined error metric being SAD, SATD or SSD; and determining the cost based on the target error metric between the first reference block and the second reference block; or wherein the two target blocks comprise a first reference block and a second reference block, determining the cost comprises: determining the cost based on weighted SAD, weighted MR-SAD, weighted SATD, weighted MR-SATD, weighted SSD or weighted MR-SSD between the first reference block and the second reference block; or wherein the two target blocks comprise a first reference block and a second reference block, and determining the cost comprises: determining a target error metric from a predefined error metric and a mean removal version of the predefined error metric based on a size of the current video block or a local illumination compensation (LIC) flag of the current video block, the predefined error metric being weighted SAD, weighted SATD or weighted SSD; and determining the cost based on the target error metric between the first reference block and the second reference block (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76; Paragraph 126).
Regarding Claim 81, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 80, wherein if the size of the current video block is larger than a threshold, or if the LIC flag of the current video block is true, the target error metric is the mean removal version of the predefined error metric; and if the size of the current video block is smaller than or equal to the threshold, or if the LIC flag of the current video block is false, the target error metric is the predefined error metric; or wherein if the size of the current video block is larger than a threshold, or if the LIC flag of the current video block is true, the target error metric is the mean removal version of the predefined error metric; and if the size of the current video block is smaller than or equal to the threshold, or if the LIC flag of the current video block is false, the target error metric is the predefined error metric; or wherein determining the cost based on weighted SAD, weighted MR-SAD, weighted SATD, weighted MR-SATD, weighted SSD or weighted MR-SSD between the first reference block and the second reference block comprises: determining a difference between a first current sample in the first reference block and the corresponding first reference sample in the second reference block; and applying a weight to the difference based on one of: row and column indices of the first current sample in the first reference block, a position of the first current sample in the first reference block, or a distance between the first current sample and a center position of the first reference block; or wherein LIC is absent if the cost is determined based on MR-SAD, MR-SATD or MR-SSD (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76; Paragraph 126).
Regarding Claim 82, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 79, wherein determining the cost comprises: determining an error item indicating the degree of distortion between the two target blocks; determining a regulation item indicating an amount of motion information for the refinement of the coding data; and determining, as the cost, a weighted sum of the error item and the regulation item (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76).
Regarding Claim 83, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 82, wherein an error metric for determining the error item comprises at least one of the following: SAD, MR-SAD, SATD, MR-SATD, SSD, MR-SSD, weighted SAD, weighted MR-SAD, weighted SATD, weighted MR-SATD, weighted SSD, and weighted MR-SSD; or wherein determining the regulation item comprises: determining a MVD between a searching MV and a starting MV of the current video block; and determining, as the regulation item, a sum of an absolute horizontal component of the MVD and an absolute vertical component of the MVD; or wherein at least one weight for the weighted sum is predefined or indicated in the bitstream or determined based on coded information (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76).
Regarding Claim 84, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 67, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream; or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream; or wherein the prediction samples of at least one of the two target blocks are adjusted by filtering the prediction samples; or wherein the prediction samples of at least one of the two target blocks are adjusted based on a linear model; wherein the prediction samples of at least one of the two target blocks are adjusted based on a coding mode of the current video block (Paragraphs 45-56; Paragraphs 73-76).
Apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims 85 and 86 are drawn to the apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium corresponding to the method of claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above as they recite substantially similar limitations. Chen et al. further teaches an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method (Paragraphs 90-92).
Regarding Claim 87, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 67, further comprising: storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Paragraph 88; Paragraphs 90-93; Paragraph 113).
Conclusion
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 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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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 at 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights