DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on April 27, 2026. Claims 51-55, 57, and 59-71 are pending and are examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to original claims 51, 69, and 70 have been fully considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received April 27, 2026 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose “the first predetermined value” and “the second predetermined value” which are preset values not related to the location of the samples. Applicant additionally argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose “a difference of the first sample and the second sample or pixel is determined”.
Examiner points out that Applicants response appears to interpret several terms in its claims in a much narrower fashion than broadest reasonable. For example, Applicant argues a predetermined value is a preset value not related to the location of the samples. However, “predetermined” is merely a term meaning “determined prior”. If Applicant would like to limit its value to a constant or to a value not determined at the coder, etc., Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim accordingly.
Applicant also appears to argue that the first and second “prediction samples” described in its claims cannot be values at the same coordinate derived from two different reference pictures. However, the term “prediction samples” is broad, and can be interpreted as any sample used to predict the single block. Thus, certainly, a reference sample from a first prediction block and a reference sample from a second prediction block are satisfy the criteria for two different “prediction samples” of that block. If Applicant would like to narrow this to encompass, for example, sub-blocks, and Applicant finds the support to do so, then Applicant is encouraged to amend the claim accordingly.
Ultimately, Applicants arguments have been considered, however they are directed to newly amended language, which is addressed below. See the rejection below for how newly cited portions of the art on record reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
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.
Claims 51-55, 57, 59-63, and 68-71 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0094305 (“Li”) in view of the level of skill in the art.
With respect to claim 51, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including:
A method of video processing, comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a video unit and a bitstream of the video, information on applying an optical flow based coding method to the video unit based on illuminance information of the video unit (see Figs. 7-8, items 182, 212, ¶¶6, 21, 74, 102, 123, 137-139, 149-150, describing determining, during encoding or decoding, i.e., a conversion between a video unit and a bitstream of the video unit, information on applying BIO (an optical flow based coding method) to the video unit based on whether the block occurs in a region of illumination change, i.e., illuminance information of the video unit), wherein the illuminance information comprises an illuminance change of the video unit and the illuminance change is included in a process of the optical flow based coding method (see citations above, describing that the illuminance information is whether the block occurs in a region of illumination change, i.e., illuminance change of the video unit, and that the BIO method may be altered based on the presence of this illumination/illuminance change, e.g., by applying special processes during BIO or by using illumination compensation in the calculation of gradients for BIO, i.e., the illuminance change is included in a process of the optical flow based coding method), and wherein during the process of the optical flow based coding method, a first predetermined value is subtracted from a first sample or pixel in a first prediction block of the video unit, a second predetermined value is subtracted from a second sample or pixel in a second prediction block of the video unit, and a difference of the first sample or pixel and the second sample or pixel is determined (see ¶¶35-42, 103, 124, describing that the BIO method may include the modification of a prediction of a block on a per-pixel basis, i.e., modifies a first sample or pixel in a first prediction block (pixel sized prediction block) of the video unit (block) and a second sample or pixel in a second prediction block (pixel sized prediction block) of the video unit (block), that BIO includes the determination of pixel-level BIO offsets/modifications of each of the pixel-level the predictions (values to be subtracted or added depending on their direction) and that the range of the BIO offset may be restricted based on predefined/signaled values (i.e., predetermined values) – in other words, in at least some circumstances, e.g., where the BIO offset reaches range limits, each predicted pixel value (of its respective prediction block within the video block) includes the addition/subtraction of a predetermined offset/value; ¶¶104, 125 describe that the BIO method may also analyze the deviation between neighboring pixels, i.e., determine the difference between the pixels within a block); and
performing the conversion based on the information (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above and Figs. 7-8, items 184, 186, 214, 216, describing that the motion compensation process of encoding/decoding, i.e., the conversion, is performed (e.g., by performing BIO or not) based on the information on applying optical flow).
Examiner notes that the equations of ¶42 show that the offset is added to the regular bi-prediction, while the claim limitation says “subtracted”. However, the offset itself is based on vectors, Vx and Vy. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been well aware that vectors have both magnitude and direction, in other words they may be negative. Such a person would also have understood that the addition of a negative offset is the mathematical equivalent of the subtraction of a positive offset. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to such a person to have described this offset as, at least in certain directions, being subtracted from the predicted pixel values.
With respect to claim 52, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51. Li additionally discloses:
wherein the information on applying the optical flow based coding method comprises at least one of:
whether to apply the optical flow based coding method to the video unit, or
how to apply optical flow based coding method to the video unit (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 51 above, describing that the information on applying the optical flow based coding method comprises whether to apply the optical flow based coding method to the block and how to apply it, e.g., whether to apply it differently).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 52.
With respect to claim 53, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51. Li additionally discloses:
wherein determining the information on applying the optical flow based coding method to the video unit comprises:
determining whether an illuminance change of the video unit occurs; and
in response to that the illuminance change occurs, determining that the optical flow based coding method is not applied to the video unit (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 51 above, describing that in the combined system, determining information on applying the joint method comprises determining whether an illuminance change occurs and, if so, determining that the optical flow based coding method is or is not applied based thereon).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 53.
With respect to claim 54, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of dependent claim 53. Li additionally discloses:
wherein a syntax element in the bitstream indicates whether the illuminance change occurs, or
wherein determining whether the illuminance change of the video unit occurs comprises:
determining whether the illuminance change of the video unit occurs based on at least one of: whether a coding tool is applied to the video unit, or how the coding tool is applied to the video unit (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 51 above, and Li ¶¶102, 123, 139, describing that a syntax element in the bitstream, e.g., IC_flag, may indicate whether the illuminance change occurs).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 54.
With respect to claim 55, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51. Li additionally discloses:
further comprising:
applying the optical flow based coding process to the video unit based on whether an illuminance change of the video unit occurs (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 51 above, describing that the optical flow based coding process is applied to the video unit based on whether there is an illumination change in the region of the block).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 55.
With respect to claim 57, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51. Li additionally discloses:
wherein a value is subtracted in calculation of a gradient in the process of the optical flow based coding method (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 51 above and Li ¶¶37-42, describing that in the optical flow based coding method, it was known to, calculate a gradient by subtracting a value).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 57.
With respect to claim 59, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51. Li additionally discloses es:
wherein a determination of an illuminance change of the video unit is performed in a first level, and
a determination of how to and/or whether to apply the optical flow based coding method is performed in a second level (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 51 above, describing that in the combined system it may first be determined whether there is an illuminance change and then may be determined whether and how to apply the optical flow, i.e., the determinations are performed in first and second levels).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 59.
With respect to claim 60, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51. Li additionally discloses:
wherein how to apply the optical flow based coding method is determined based on at least one of: whether a coding tool is applied to the video unit, or how the coding tool is applied to the video unit, or
wherein whether the optical flow based coding method is applied to the video unit is determined based on at least one of: whether a coding tool is applied to the video unit, or how the coding tool is applied to the video unit (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 51 above, including Li ¶¶102, 123, 139, describing that the optical flow based coding method applied to the video unit may be applied based on whether illumination compensation is applied/whether the IC flag is true, i.e., whether a coding tool is applied to the video unit).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 60.
With respect to claim 61, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of dependent claim 60. Li additionally discloses:
wherein the coding tool comprises at least one of:
a location illumination compensation method, a bi-prediction with coding unit level weight method, or an affine compensation method, or
wherein if the coding tool is applied to the video unit, the optical flow based coding method is applied to the video unit (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 51 and 60 above, describing that the coding tool comprises LIC, i.e., a location illumination compensation method).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 61.
With respect to claim 62, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51. Li additionally discloses:
wherein the optical flow based coding method comprises at least one of:
a bi-directional optical flow method in which an optical flow is used to refine a bi- prediction signal of a coding block,
a prediction refinement with optical flow for affine mode in which the optical flow is used to refine an affine motion compensated prediction, or
a coding method in which the optical flow is used to generate or refine a prediction/reconstruction signal of a coding block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 51 above, describing that the optical flow based coding method may be BIO, i.e., a bi-directional optical flow method in which an optical flow is used to refine a bi-prediction signal of a coding block).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 62.
With respect to claim 63, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of dependent claim 62. Li additionally discloses:
wherein the optical flow based coding method is a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), or
wherein the optical flow based coding method is a prediction refinement with optical flow (PROF) (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 51 above, describing that the optical flow based coding method is BIO – also known as BDOF).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 63.
With respect to claim 68, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51. Li additionally discloses:
wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream; or decoding the video unit from the bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 51 above, describing that the conversion may be encoding or decoding).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 68.
With respect to claim 69, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51. Li additionally discloses:
An apparatus for processing video data (see Li Fig. 1, items 20, 30, ¶¶5, 6, 51, 74, describing encoders/decoders, i.e., apparatuses, for video processing) comprising:
a processor (see Li ¶¶52, 54, 75, 153-156, describing that the functions described may be embodied in software stored in a computer-readable storage medium and executed by a processor); and
a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon (see citations and arguments with respect to element above, describing that the functions described may be embodied in software/instructions stored in a non-transitory memory), wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform acts comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a video unit and a bitstream of the video, information on applying an optical flow based coding method to the video unit based on illuminance information of the video unit, wherein the illuminance information comprises an illuminance change of the video unit and the illuminance change is included in a process of the optical flow based coding method, and wherein during the process of the optical flow based coding method, a first predetermined value is subtracted from a first sample or pixel in a first prediction block of the video unit, as second predetermined value is subtracted from a second sample or pixel in a second prediction block of the video, and a difference of the first sample or pixel and the second sample or pixel is determined (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 51 above); and
performing the conversion based on the information (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 51 above).
With respect to claim 70, claim 70 recites the elements of claim 51 in computer-readable medium form rather than method form. Li discloses that its method may be embodied in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform the method (see ¶¶52, 54, 75, 153-156). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 51 also applies to claim 70.
With respect to claim 71, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51. Li additionally discloses:
further comprising: storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 69-70 above and Li Fig. 1, item 16, ¶¶47-48, 53-55, describing a computer-readable medium 16 which may receive and store encoded video data and which may be non-transitory).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 51 also apply to claim 71.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 64-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of the level of skill in the art and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0396780 (“Wang”), which corresponds to a priority application filed February 2021.
With respect to claim 64, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art teaches all the elements of independent claim 51.
Li teaches determining whether an illuminance change occurs, but does not explicitly detail how such a calculation is made, i.e., it does not explicitly disclose wherein if a change of sample or pixel values between two video units is larger than a first threshold value, an illuminance change occurs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses that it was known to calculate illumination change by determining if a change of sample or pixel values between coding units is larger than a threshold, i.e.,:
wherein if a change of sample or pixel values between two video units is larger than a first threshold value, an illuminance change occurs (see ¶¶228-230, 242, 247, describing that illumination change triggering an illumination compensation flag may be measured by determining when the luma difference between a unit in a reference frame and a unit in a current frame, i.e., between two video units, is greater than a preset change threshold).
At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with determining illumination change warranting illumination compensation processing and how to calculate such change and have understood that, as evidenced by Wang, one such method of calculation would include the determination of change using the SAD between the luma difference in a reference frame and a current frame and comparing it to a preset threshold. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, doing so in the illumination compensation change analysis of Li would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for determining illumination change using the SAD between the luma difference in a reference frame and a current frame and comparing it to a preset threshold in the illumination compensation change analysis of Li as taught by Wang.
With respect to claim 65, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art and Wang discloses all the elements of dependent claim 64. Li/Wang additionally discloses:
wherein the change is calculated by:
d=abs(P1-P2),
wherein P1 and P2 represent two samples or pixels in the two video units, respectively, and abs represents an absolute value operation, or
wherein the first threshold value is predefined, or
wherein the first threshold value is determined dynamically, or
wherein the first threshold value is indicated in the bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 64 above, showing and describing that the change may be calculated by the SAD, i.e., absolute value of the difference, between the luma of blocks of the current picture and the reference picture; such citations also describe that the first threshold value may be preset/predefined).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 64 also apply to claim 65.
With respect to claim 66, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 51 and Li in view of the level of skill in the art and Wang discloses all the elements of dependent claim 64, the combination of which is incorporated herein. Li/Wang additionally discloses:
wherein if a change of sample or pixel values in the video unit between two video units is larger than a second threshold value, an illuminance change occurs, or
wherein if a change of mean values of sample or pixel values in the video unit between two video units is larger than the second threshold value, the illuminance change occurs (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 64 above, describing that illuminance change may occur when the change of sample/pixel values between a block of the current frame and a block of the reference frame is larger than a preset, i.e., second, threshold value).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 64 also apply to claim 66.
With respect to claim 67, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art and Wang discloses all the elements of dependent claim 66. Li/Wang additionally discloses:
wherein the second threshold value is predefined, or wherein the second threshold value is determined dynamically, or wherein the second threshold value is indicated in the bitstream (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 64 and 66 above, describing that the second threshold value may be preset).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 54 also apply to claim 67.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, 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 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights