DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
H. Gao, X. Chen, S. Esenlik, J. Chen and E. Steinbach, "Decoder-Side Motion Vector Refinement in VVC: Algorithm and Hardware Implementation Considerations," in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 3197-3211, Aug. 2021 (Gao)
US 20080062327 A1 (MacInnis)
US 20100202531 A1 (Panzer)
US 20240205390 A1 (para 189)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Rejection made under 35 USC § 112 have been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant argued in substance that the claim is claiming matching cost determination of sub-pixels among three-pixels but Gao is teaching cost calculation of sub-pixels of five integer pixels, therefore it does not teach the claimed limitation.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that the claim is not directed to determination of sub-pixel matching cost using only three integer pixels. In other word it is not claiming if the three-integer pixel is anyway used (such as interpolation calculations using three integer pixels) in the calculation of the cost of sub-pixel, let alone restricting to only three of those pixels. Therefore, broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is determining cost of sub-pixels that are in the vicinity of 3- integer pixels. In an image more that three integer pixels are expected. Therefore, if the prior arts show the cost calculation of the subpixels of 3 integer pixels, it would teach the claimed limitation. Gao teaches cost calculations of enough-subpixels that are between three integer pixels. Additionally, MacInnis teaches that during cost calculation 3 pixels are used.
Examiner suggest amending claim “wherein the approximate matching costs of the plurality of sub-pixels are obtained through fitting and interpolation calculations using only the three integer pixels”
Applicant’s other argument are not persuasive because MacInnis is teaching that MCTF use two stage inter pixel and sub-pixel motion estimation and cost calculation,
Gao is teaching two-stage (integer and subpixel) techniques to perform motion estimation and compensation for video coding, where the sub-pixel costs are interpolated for faster calculation. Therefore, using the fast calculation of Gao (see “30 Fractional Search Stage” ) into MacInnis would speed up the overall system’s speed and would have been obvious to combine.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao in view of MacInnis.
Regarding Claim 1: Gao teaches a motion compensation method, comprising: acquiring a plurality of matching costs (SAD) between a to-be-processed block and a plurality of first pixel blocks, the plurality of first pixel blocks corresponding to a plurality of integer pixels within a search range in a reference frame [(Fig.4, page 3202, 2) Integer search range )] : based on the plurality of matching costs, estimating matching costs between the to-be-processed block and a plurality of second pixel blocks to obtain a plurality of approximate matching costs of a plurality of sub-pixels among three integer pixels, the plurality of second pixel blocks corresponding to
[(Fig.4 and 3) Fractional search stage; Gao use 5 integer location’s to model the approximate costs (Equations 3-5 and their related description); which is at least 3. Figs.6 & 7 )] :
performing motion compensation on the to-be-processed block according to the plurality of matching costs and the plurality of approximate matching costs [(performing MCP discussed below Equation 9)] .
Gao does not explicitly show the motion compensation is applied to motion compensated temporal filter (MCTF).
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, MacInnis teaches motion compensation is applied to motion compensated temporal filter (MCTF) where three pixels are used
[(para 26; where the motion estimation use two stage motion estimation of integer pixel and sub-pixel cost calculation {para 134, 137})]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities, because Gao is teaching two-stage (integer and subpixel) techniques to perform motion estimation and compensation for video coding, where the sub-pixel cost are interpolated for faster calculation. MacInnis is teaching that MCTF use two stage inter pixel and sub-pixel motion estimation and cost calculation, therefore using the fast calculation of Gao (see “30 Fractional Search Stage” ) into MacInnis would speed up the overall system’s speed.
Gao additionally teaches, with respect to claim 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein based on the plurality of matching costs, estimating matching costs between the to-be-processed block and the plurality of second pixel blocks to obtain the plurality of approximate matching costs comprises: establishing a coordinate system with one of the plurality of integer pixels as an origin [(Fig.6)] : performing fitting calculation based on coordinates and the plurality of matching costs of the plurality of integer pixels to obtain a fitting function [(equation (3), Fig.7 and related description)] : and obtaining the plurality of approximate matching costs based on the fitting function and coordinates of the plurality of sub-pixels in the coordinate system [(all the points on the surface of Fig.7 are estimated fractional search costs. Also, from equation (3); different values of x will produce different fractional search costs)] .
Gao additionally teaches, with respect to claim 3. The method according to claim 2, wherein performing fitting calculation based on the coordinates and the plurality of matching costs of the plurality of integer pixels to obtain the fitting function comprises: performing fitting calculation based on coordinates and the plurality of matching costs of a plurality of integer pixels on a horizontal axis of the coordinate system to obtain the fitting function: and obtaining the plurality of approximate matching costs based on the fitting function and the coordinates of the plurality of sub-pixels in the coordinate system comprises: obtaining approximate matching costs of the plurality of sub-pixels between the plurality of integer pixels on the horizontal axis of the coordinate system using coordinates of the plurality of sub-pixels between the plurality of integer pixels on the horizontal axis of the coordinate system and the fitting function. [(Fig.6; Fig.7, x of Fig.7 represents the horizontal axis of Fig.6; the surface of Fig.7 represents the sub-pixels in between)]
Gao additionally teaches, with respect to claim 4. The method according to claim 2, wherein performing fitting calculation based on the coordinates and the plurality of matching costs of the plurality of integer pixels to obtain the fitting function comprises: performing fitting calculation based on coordinates and the plurality of matching costs of the plurality of integer pixels on a vertical axis of the coordinate system to obtain the fitting function: and obtaining the plurality of approximate matching costs based on the fitting function and the coordinates of the plurality of sub-pixels in the coordinate system comprises: obtaining approximate matching costs of the plurality of sub-pixels between the plurality of integer pixels on the vertical axis of the coordinate system using coordinates of the plurality of sub-pixels between the plurality of integer pixels on the vertical axis of the coordinate system and the fitting function. [(Fig.6; Fig.7, y of Fig.7 represents the vertical axis of Fig.6; the surface of Fig.7 represents the sub-pixels in between)]
Gao additionally teaches, with respect to claim 5. The method according to claim 2, wherein performing fitting calculation based on the coordinates and the plurality of matching costs of the plurality of integer pixels to obtain the fitting function comprises: performing fitting calculation based on coordinates and the plurality of matching costs of the plurality of integer pixels on a horizontal axis and a vertical axis in a plurality of quadrants of the coordinate system to obtain a fitting function: and obtaining the plurality of approximate matching costs based on the fitting function and the coordinates of the plurality of sub-pixels in the coordinate system comprises: obtaining approximate matching costs of the plurality of sub-pixels in the plurality of quadrants using coordinates of the plurality of sub-pixels in the plurality of quadrants and the fitting function. [(Fig.6; Fig.7, x & y of Fig.7 represent the horizontal and vertical axis of Fig.6; the surface of Fig.7 represents the sub-pixels in between. Fig.6 hence Fig.7 have four quadrant centering at (0,0))]
Gao additionally teaches, with respect to claim 6. The method according claim 2, wherein the fitting function comprises any one of: a polynomial function [(equation (3) is polynomial of degree 2)] , a power function, or a logarithmic function.
Gao additionally teaches, with respect to claim 7. The method according to claim 1, wherein performing motion compensation on the to-be-processed block according to the plurality of matching costs and the plurality of approximate matching costs comprises: determining an optimal integer pixel and an optimal sub-pixel according to the plurality of matching costs and the plurality of approximate matching costs, and determining an optimal pixel between the optimal integer pixel and the optimal sub-pixel: determining an optimal motion vector to be a motion vector corresponding to the optimal pixel: [(Gaopage 3203, equation (9) and related description,)] and performing motion compensation on the to-be-processed block using the optimal motion vector. [(performing MCP discussed below Equation 9)] .
Regarding Claims 8-14: See analyses of claims 1-7 and see para 11 of Panzer
Regarding Claims 15-20: See analyses of claims 1-5 & 7 and see para 11 of Panzer
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 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 Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights