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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues the cited prior art fails to teach i) categorizing merge candidates into separate groups and applying a partial reordering, ii) applying different cost functions depending on the characteristics of each merge candidate. Regarding Applicant's first argument see response to amendment and new grounds of rejections for the amended portion. As to the Applicant's second argument Park discloses different equations for uni-prediction and bi-prediction cost calculations. [¶ 0103-0106; ¶ 0120-0153] The cited prior suggests and teaches the claim limitations presented in the rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/05/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: wherein merge candidates included in the merge list are categorized into a first group and a second group, and wherein the modified merge list is derived by reordering merge candidates in the first group but not merge candidates in the second group. The Applicant's disclosure does not suggest or teach any categorization and grouping of merge candidates for reordering. The Examiner request the Applicant to indicate where in the disclosure the support for the amendment can be found.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US 2021/0037238 in view of Chen et al. US 2020/0068218.
As to claim 1, Park teaches a method of decoding a video, the method comprising: generating a merge list for a current block; [abstract; fig. 2; figs. 25-26; ¶ 0082; ¶ 0085; ¶ 0091] obtaining a modified merge list for the current block selecting one of a plurality of merge candidates included in the modified merge list; [figs. 5-7; fig. 12; ¶ 0092-0102; ¶ 0122-0127; ¶ 0159; ¶ 0178; ¶ 0259] and obtaining a prediction block of the current block based on motion information derived from the selected merge candidate, [figs. 3-7; figs. 25-26; ¶ 0093-0102; ¶ 0122-0127]
Park distinguishes (categories) between BI-direction and uni-directional merge candidates. Park does not explicitly teaches wherein merge candidates included in the merge list are categorized into a first group and a second group, and wherein the modified merge list is derived by reordering merge candidates in the first group but not merge candidates in the second group.
Chen teaches wherein merge candidates included in the merge list are categorized into a first group and a second group, and wherein the modified merge list is derived by reordering merge candidates in the first group but not merge candidates in the second group. [fig. 16; ¶ 0036; ¶ 0091-0099]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Chen with the teachings of Park allowing for improved coding efficiency.
As to claim 2, Park (modified by Chen) teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park teaches wherein the merge candidates in the first group are rearranged based on a cost of each merge candidate. [¶ 0100; ¶ 0123]
As to claim 4, Park (modified by Chen) teaches the limitations of claim 1, Chen teaches wherein indexes of the merge candidates in the second group in the modified merge list remain the same as in the merge list. [¶ 0099]
As to claim 5, Park (modified by Chen) teaches the limitations of claim 2. Park teaches wherein in response to the merge candidate having bidirectional motion information, the cost of the merge candidate is derived by using both an LO reference template, specified by LO motion information of the merge candidate, and an L1 reference template, specified by L1 motion information of the merge candidate. [fig. 7; ¶ 0121-0128]
As to claim 7, Park (modified by Chen) teaches the limitations of claim 2. Park teaches wherein a function to derive the cost is different between a first merge candidate and a second merge candidate in the merge list. [¶ 0103-0106; ¶ 0120-0153]
As to claim 9, Park (modified by Chen) teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park teaches wherein an inserting order of merge candidates to construct the merge list is determined based on a shape of the current block. [¶ 0122-0153]
As to claim 10, Park (modified by Chen) teaches the limitations of claim 9. Park teaches wherein, in response to the current block has a non-square shape where a width is inserted to the merge list earlier than merge candidate derived from a top neighboring block, and wherein in response to the current block has a non-square shape where a width is smaller than a height, a merge candidate derived from a top neighboring block is inserted to the merge list earlier than a merge candidate derived from a left neighboring block. [figs. 8; ¶ 0011; ¶ 0100; ¶ 0122-0153]
As to claim 11, Park (modified by Chen) teaches the limitations of claim 1. Park teaches wherein the method further comprises: deriving a new merge candidate by combining a plurality of merge candidates in the modified merge list, and inserting the new merge candidate to the modified merge list. [¶ 0106-0107]
As to claim 14, Park teaches a method of encoding a video, the method comprising: generating a merge list for a current block; [abstract; fig. 2; figs. 25-26; ¶ 0082; ¶ 0085; ¶ 0091] obtaining a modified merge list for the current block; [figs. 5-7; fig. 12; ¶ 0092-0102; ¶ 0122-0127; ¶ 0159; ¶ 0178; ¶ 0259] selecting one of merge candidates included in the modified merge list; [figs. 5-7; fig. 12; ¶ 0092-0102; ¶ 0122-0127; ¶ 0159; ¶ 0178; ¶ 0259] and encoding information on a selected merge candidate. [¶ 0082; ¶ 0090-0095]
Park distinguishes (categorized) between BI-direction and uni-directional merge candidates. Park does not explicitly teaches wherein merge candidates included in the merge list are categorized into a first group and a second group, and wherein the modified merge list is derived by reordering merge candidates in the first group but not merge candidates in the second group.
Chen teaches wherein merge candidates included in the merge list are categorized into a first group and a second group, and wherein the modified merge list is derived by reordering merge candidates in the first group but not merge candidates in the second group. [fig. 16; ¶ 0036; ¶ 0091-0099]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Chen with the teachings of Park allowing for improved coding efficiency.
As to claim 15, Park teaches a device for transmitting compressed video data, comprising: a processor configured to obtain the compressed video data; and a transmitter configured to transmit the compressed video data, wherein obtaining the compressed video data comprises: generating a merge list for a current block; [abstract; fig. 2; figs. 25-26; ¶ 0082; ¶ 0085; ¶ 0091] obtaining a modified merge list for the current block; [figs. 5-7; fig. 12; ¶ 0092-0102; ¶ 0122-0127; ¶ 0159; ¶ 0178; ¶ 0259] selecting one of merge candidates included in the modified merge list; [figs. 5-7; fig. 12; ¶ 0092-0102; ¶ 0122-0127; ¶ 0159; ¶ 0178; ¶ 0259] and encoding information on a selected merge candidate. [¶ 0082; ¶ 0090-0095]
Park distinguishes (categories) between BI-direction and uni-directional merge candidates. Park does not explicitly teaches wherein merge candidates included in the merge list are categorized into a first group and a second group, and wherein the modified merge list is derived by reordering merge candidates in the first group but not merge candidates in the second group.
Chen teaches wherein merge candidates included in the merge list are categorized into a first group and a second group, and wherein the modified merge list is derived by reordering merge candidates in the first group but not merge candidates in the second group. [fig. 16; ¶ 0036; ¶ 0091-0099]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Chen with the teachings of Park allowing for improved coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. US 2021/0037238 in view of Chen et al. US 2020/0068218 further in view of Zhang et al. US 2022/0239899.
As to claim 6, Park (modified by Chen) teaches the limitations of claim 5. Park (modified by Chen) does not explicitly teach wherein the template matching cost of the merge candidate is derived based on a reference template obtained by a weighted sum of the LO reference template and the L1 reference template.
Zhang teaches wherein the template matching cost of the merge candidate is derived based on a reference template obtained by a weighted sum of the LO reference template and the L1 reference template. [¶ 0589]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Zhang with the teachings of Park (modified by Chen) allowing for improved coding efficiency.
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 ANNER HOLDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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 571.272.7383. 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.
/ANNER HOLDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483