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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This action is in reply to Applicant’s Amendments and Remarks filed on 12/16/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim limitation “replacing the first MV in the MV set with the first MVP to generate a first MV-MVP combined set” recited in claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants contend the combination of Chen and PARK (or Chen and Xu) does not teach the claimed feature above (Applicants’ Remarks dated 12/16/2025, p. 2-3). However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. FIG. 13 of Chen illustrates neighboring block motion vector VA, VB, VC, VD or VE is selected using rate-distortion cost check as MVP0 or MVP1. If the selected MV is defined as a first MV forming a first MV set and MVP0 or MVP1 is defined as one or more MVPs to form an MV predictor set, the new selected MV as MVP0 or MVP1 is replacing a first MV in the MV set. Therefore, Without further specifying how to define a MV set, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have difficulty in recognizing the new determined MVP0 from VA, VB, or VC as a first MV forming a MV set and a combined MV-MVP set {MP0, MP1} obtained in Chen meets the definition of replacing the first MV in the MV set with the first MVP to generate a first MV-MVP combined set in its broadest reasonable sense. Furthermore, page 83-84 of PARK3161 and FIG. 5-6 and 9 of Xu disclose this well-known concept as well (Please see detail mapping below in section 8-9).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, at 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20180359483 A1) in view of PARK et al (US 20200296414 A1; see provisional application 62/593161 with the priority date of 11/30/2017; see attached English translation version hereafter “PARK3161”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method [e.g. FIG. 24; video encoding] comprising: determining a motion vector (MV) set [e.g. motion vector list] comprising one or more MVs [e.g. FIG. 12-13; MVs] and an MV predictor (MVP) set comprising one or more MVPs [e.g. MYP0 or MVP1]; determining a cost of a first MV-MVP combined set [e.g. FIG. 8-10, 13 and 15; MVPs rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select as the control point motion vector; combined set of {MVP0, MVP1}]; and selecting one of the MV set or the first MV-MVP combined set to be a best MV set based on the cost of the first MV-MVP combined set [e.g. rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select].
Although Chen discloses determining a first MV of the MV set [e.g. FIG. 13; VA, VB or VC] and a first MVP of the MVP set [e.g. MVP0 is an element of VA or VB or VC]; replacing the first MV in the MV set with the first MVP to generate a first MV-MVP combined set [e.g. {MVP0, MVP1}; rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select as the control point motion vector, MVP0 is an element of VA or VB or VC and MVP1 is an element of VD or VE], it is noted that Chen differs to the present invention in that Chen fails to explicitly disclose the detail of determining a condition whether a first MV is equal to a first MVP.
However, PARK teaches the well-known concept of determining whether a first MV of the MV set [e.g. PARK3161: page 83-84; C0 or C3]; is equal to a first MVP of the MVP set [e.g. PARK3161: C2 or C1; if C1 and C0 are same]; on a condition that the first MV is not equal to the first MVP, replacing the first MV in the MV set with the first MVP to generate a first MV-MVP combined set [e.g. PARK3161: when the C1 and the C0 are not the same motion vector, the C1 may be derived as the MVP candidate of the current block; page 40-41; determine CPMV for each candidate and compare the RDcost to optimally select candidate with lower value].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the video coding system disclosed by Chen to exploit the well-known determining motion vector candidate list technique taught by PARK as above, in order to provide increased video coding efficiency [See PARK; [0004]].
Regarding claim 2, Chen and PARK further disclose comparing the cost of the first MV-MVP combined set with a cost of the MV set; on a condition that the cost of the first MV-MVP combined set is lower than the cost of the MV set [e.g. Chen: the minimum template cost may be considered as the updated MV of that list to replace the original one; PARK3161: page 78 Figure. 1 and page 84 Figure 6; reordering order by comparing the cost], selecting the first MV-MVP combined set to be the best MV set; and on a condition that the cost of the first MV-MVP combined set is greater than or equal to the cost of the MV set, selecting the MV set to be the best MV set [e.g. Chen: rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select; PARK3161: page 40-41; determine CPMV for each candidate and compare the RDcost to optimally select candidate with lower value].
Regarding claim 3, Chen and PARK further disclose the MV set comprises one or more control point MVs and the MVP set comprises one or more affine MVPs [e.g. Chen: FIG. 12-13; control point MVs and MVPs] .
Regarding claim 4, Chen and PARK further disclose determining whether a second MV of the MV set is equal to a second MVP of the MVP set [e.g. Chen: neighboring motion vectors]; on a condition that the second MV is not equal to the second MVP, replacing the second MV in the MV set with the second MVP to generate a second MV-MVP combined set [e.g. PARK3161: page 83-84]; determining a cost of the second MV-MVP combined set; updating the best MV set based on the cost of the second MV-MVP combined set; determining whether a third MV of the MV set is equal to a third MVP of the MVP set; on a condition that the third MV is not equal to the third MVP, replacing the third MV in the MV set with the third MVP to generate a third MV-MVP combined set [e.g. PARK3161: page 83-84]; determining a cost of the third MV-MVP combined set; and updating the best MV set based on the cost of the third MV-MVP combined set [e.g. Chen: rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select; PARK3161: page 40-41; determine CPMV for each candidate and compare the RDcost to optimally select candidate with lower value].
Regarding claim 5, Chen and PARK further disclose determining whether a second MV of the MV set is equal to a second MVP of the MVP set; on a condition that the second MV is not equal to the second MVP, replacing the second MV in the first MV-MVP combined set with the second MVP to generate a fourth MV-MVP combined set [e.g. PARK3161: page 83-84]; determining a cost of the fourth MV-MVP combined set; and updating the best MV set based on the cost of the fourth MV-MVP combined set [e.g. Chen: rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select; PARK3161: page 40-41; determine CPMV for each candidate and compare the RDcost to optimally select candidate with lower value].
Regarding claim 6, Chen and PARK further disclose the cost of the first MV-MVP combined set is a motion estimation (ME) cost [e.g. Chen FIG. 12-13 and 24; [0166]; PARK: FIG. 1 and 12], and the ME cost is determined based on a prediction error [e.g. Chen and PARK: absolute sum difference SAD] and a respective bit cost [e.g. PARK: bit amount for a prediction can be reduced] for each MV in the first MV-MVP combined set [e.g. Chen: rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select; PARK3161: page 40-41; determine CPMV for each candidate and compare the RDcost to optimally select candidate with lower value].
Regarding claim 7, Chen and PARK further disclose encoding a coding block based on the best MV set [e.g. Chen: FIG. 24 and 26; rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select; PARK3161: page 40-41; determine CPMV for each candidate and compare the RDcost to optimally select candidate with lower value].
Regarding claim 8-14, this is an apparatus that includes same limitation as in claim 1-7 above respectively, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Chen and PARK disclose a video encoding device [e.g. Chen: FIG. 24; encoder; PARK3161: page 3; FIG. 1; encoding apparatus]
Regarding claim 15-20, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 1-6 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Chen and PARK disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [e.g. Chen: FIG. 24; [0012]; PARK: [0323-0325]].
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20180359483 A1) in view of Xu et al (US 20190158870 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method [e.g. FIG. 24; video encoding] comprising: determining a motion vector (MV) set [e.g. motion vector list] comprising one or more MVs [e.g. FIG. 12-13; MVs] and an MV predictor (MVP) set comprising one or more MVPs [e.g. MYP0 or MVP1]; determining a cost of a first MV-MVP combined set [e.g. FIG. 8-10, 13 and 15; MVPs rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select as the control point motion vector; combined set of {MVP0, MVP1}]; and selecting one of the MV set or the first MV-MVP combined set to be a best MV set based on the cost of the first MV-MVP combined set [e.g. rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select].
Although Chen discloses determining a first MV of the MV set [e.g. FIG. 13; VA, VB or VC] and a first MVP of the MVP set [e.g. MVP0 is an element of VA or VB or VC]; replacing the first MV in the MV set with the first MVP to generate a first MV-MVP combined set [e.g. {MVP0, MVP1}; rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select as the control point motion vector, MVP0 is an element of VA or VB or VC and MVP1 is an element of VD or VE], it is noted that Chen differs to the present invention in that Chen fails to explicitly disclose the detail of determining a condition whether a first MV is equal to a first MVP.
However, Xu teaches the well-known concept of determining whether a first MV of the MV set [e.g. FIG. 5-6 and 9; determining a MV from a0, or a1 for control point]; is equal to a first MVP of the MVP set [e.g. selecting one with minimum cost]; on a condition that the first MV is not equal to the first MVP [e.g. smaller cost], replacing the first MV in the MV set with the first MVP to generate a first MV-MVP combined set [e.g. selecting one with minimum cost as the MV of the control point].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the video coding system disclosed by Chen to exploit the well-known determining motion vector for control point technique taught by Xu as above, in order to provide improve coding performance of existing coding systems [See Xu; [0039]].
Regarding claim 2, Chen and Xu further disclose comparing the cost of the first MV-MVP combined set with a cost of the MV set; on a condition that the cost of the first MV-MVP combined set is lower than the cost of the MV set [e.g. Chen: the minimum template cost may be considered as the updated MV of that list to replace the original one; Xu: FIG. 5-6 and 9; selecting one with minimum cost as the MV of the control point], selecting the first MV-MVP combined set to be the best MV set; and on a condition that the cost of the first MV-MVP combined set is greater than or equal to the cost of the MV set, selecting the MV set to be the best MV set [e.g. Chen: rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select; Xu: selecting one with minimum cost as the MV of the control point].
Regarding claim 3, Chen and Xu further disclose the MV set comprises one or more control point MVs and the MVP set comprises one or more affine MVPs [e.g. Chen: FIG. 12-13; control point MVs and MVPs] .
Regarding claim 4, Chen and Xu further disclose determining whether a second MV of the MV set is equal to a second MVP of the MVP set [e.g. Chen: neighboring motion vectors]; on a condition that the second MV is not equal to the second MVP, replacing the second MV in the MV set with the second MVP to generate a second MV-MVP combined set [e.g. Xu: [0093]]; determining a cost of the second MV-MVP combined set; updating the best MV set based on the cost of the second MV-MVP combined set; determining whether a third MV of the MV set is equal to a third MVP of the MVP set; on a condition that the third MV is not equal to the third MVP, replacing the third MV in the MV set with the third MVP to generate a third MV-MVP combined set [e.g. Xu: [0093-0095]]; determining a cost of the third MV-MVP combined set; and updating the best MV set based on the cost of the third MV-MVP combined set [e.g. Chen: rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select; Xu: FIG. 5-6 and 9; selecting one with minimum cost as the MV of the control point].
Regarding claim 5, Chen and Xu further disclose determining whether a second MV of the MV set is equal to a second MVP of the MVP set; on a condition that the second MV is not equal to the second MVP, replacing the second MV in the first MV-MVP combined set with the second MVP to generate a fourth MV-MVP combined set [e.g. Xu: [0089 and 0093-0095]]; determining a cost of the fourth MV-MVP combined set; and updating the best MV set based on the cost of the fourth MV-MVP combined set [e.g. Chen: rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select; Xu: FIG. 5-6 and 9; selecting one with minimum cost as the MV of the control point].
Regarding claim 6, Chen and Xu further disclose the cost of the first MV-MVP combined set is a motion estimation (ME) cost [e.g. Chen FIG. 12-13 and 24; [0166]; Xu: FIG. 5-6 and 9], and the ME cost is determined based on a prediction error [e.g. Chen: absolute sum difference SAD] and a respective bit cost [e.g. Xu: reduce the processing complexity] for each MV in the first MV-MVP combined set [e.g. Chen: rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select; Xu: FIG. 5-6 and 9; selecting one with minimum cost as the MV of the control point].
Regarding claim 7, Chen and Xu further disclose encoding a coding block based on the best MV set [e.g. Chen: FIG. 24 and 26; rate-distortion check to determine which motion vector set candidate is select; Xu: FIG. 5-6 and 9; selecting one with minimum cost as the MV of the control point].
Regarding claim 8-14, this is an apparatus that includes same limitation as in claim 1-7 above respectively, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Chen and Xu disclose a video encoding device [e.g. Chen: FIG. 24; encoder; Xu: FIG. 13-14; encoding method]
Regarding claim 15-20, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that includes same limitation as in claim 1-6 above, the rejection of which are incorporated herein. Furthermore, Chen and Xu disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium [e.g. Chen: FIG. 24; [0012]; Xu: [0132]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al (US 20180192069 A1).
Zou et al (US 20170332095 A1).
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 ZHUBING REN whose telephone number is (571)272-2788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 571-2727383. 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.
/ZHUBING REN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483