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
The examiner would like to thank the applicant’s representative for fully considering the merits of the Non-Final Office action and providing amendments aimed at furthering prosecution.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 7, Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102, filed 10/22/2025, with respect to claims 1, 5-8, 11, 15-17, 19 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claims 1, 5-8, 11, 15-17, 19 and 20 have been withdrawn due to amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 8 of the submitted remarks, applicant alleges that Jeong fails to teach “wherein the direction information indicates one of a plurality of directions including two horizontal directions, two vertical directions, and four diagonal directions.” As this limitation includes, “including”, it would indicate the group is open-ended and therefore not limited to an indication being selected from exactly that said grouping. Therefore, as there are two directions, (+) and (-), for the x-axis and two directions, (+) and (-), for the y-axis, that would explicitly teach the limitation as claimed as necessity for specific teaching of any diagonal direction is merely an optional alternative. Of note, a proper grouping requiring all three in a group in the art would be written as follows:
“…direction information indicating one of a plurality of directions consisting of two horizontal directions, two vertical directions, and four diagonal directions.”
The updated rejections below, using the same grounds, will clarify any remaining issues discussed in the remarks.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 11, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0051335 A1, Liao et al., referred to as LIAO hereinafter in view of S. Jeong et al., "Merge Mode With Motion Vector Difference," 2020 IEEE, International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2020, pp. 1157-1160, referred to as JEONG hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, LIAO discloses a video decoding method, comprising:
determining whether to apply a geometric partitioning mode (Paragraph [0348]);
deriving a motion vector from a merge candidate list (Paragraph [0353], wherein motion vectors are inherently derived from candidate lists as derived in paragraphs [0118]-[0121].);
correcting the motion vector by using motion vector difference information (Paragraph [0346] discloses coding with a Merge mode with Motion Vector Difference (MMVD), which is used to provide necessary motion correction.); and
generating a prediction block of a current block based on a corrected motion vector (FIG. 3B; Paragraphs [0105]-[0108], wherein BPUs are equivalent to blocks for purposes of examination.);
wherein the motion vector information includes direction information and distance information (Paragraph [0095], wherein motion vectors by definition are direction and distance.).
However, in the same field of endeavor and in attempting to solve a similar problem using difference values, LIAO specifically fails to but JEONG does disclose wherein the motion vector difference information includes direction information and distance information (Pages 1158-1159, Sections 3.1 and 3.2); and
wherein the direction information indicates one of a plurality of directions including two horizontal directions and two vertical directions (Table 3, wherein there are two directions along the x-axis and two along the y-axis.).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize wherein a motion vector difference represents distance and direction as it is a well-known concept that is widely used in the art that would yield predictable results in any given implementation.
Regarding claim 6, LIAO discloses the video decoding method of claim 1, wherein, when the geometric partitioning mode is applied, deriving the motion vector from the merge candidate list comprises:
deriving a motion vector for each of two partitioned regions from the merge candidate list (Paragraph [0353] discloses two partitions in which two motion vectors are derived.).
Regarding claim 7, LIAO discloses the video decoding method of claim 6, wherein correcting the motion vector, when the two partitioned regions use different motion vector difference information, comprises:
correcting the motion vector for each of the two partitioned regions by using the different motion vector difference information (Paragraph [0353] discloses two partitions using their own difference information.).
Regarding claim 8, LIAO discloses the video decoding method of claim 6, wherein correcting the motion vector, when the two partitioned regions use same motion vector difference information, comprises: correcting the motion vector for each of the two partitioned regions by using the same motion vector difference information (Paragraph [0354] discloses the blending mode, which uses a shared weight for both regions.).
Regarding claim 11, LIAO discloses a video encoding method, comprising:
determining whether to apply a geometric partitioning mode (Paragraphs [0145]-[0146] disclose wherein geometric partitioning mode is utilized in parallel with CIIP or other modes.);
determining a motion vector from a merge candidate list (Paragraph [0121] discloses deriving a motion vector for a partition.);
correcting the motion vector by using motion vector difference information (Paragraph [0346] discloses coding with a Merge mode with Motion Vector Difference (MMVD), which is used to provide necessary motion correction.); and
generating a prediction block of a current block based on a corrected motion vector (FIG. 3B; Paragraphs [0105]-[0108], wherein BPUs are equivalent to blocks for purposes of examination.),
wherein the motion vector information includes direction information and distance information (Paragraph [0095], wherein motion vectors by definition are direction and distance.)
However, in the same field of endeavor and in attempting to solve a similar problem using difference values, LIAO specifically fails to but JEONG does disclose wherein the motion vector difference information includes direction information and distance information (Pages 1158-1159, Sections 3.1 and 3.2); and
wherein the direction information indicates one of a plurality of directions including two horizontal directions and two vertical directions (Table 3, wherein there are two directions along the x-axis and two along the y-axis.).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize wherein a motion vector difference represents distance and direction as it is a well-known concept that is widely used in the art that would yield predictable results in any given implementation.
Regarding claim 16, LIAO discloses the video encoding method of claim 11, wherein,
when the geometric partitioning mode is applied, determining the motion vector from the merge candidate list comprises determining a motion vector for each of two partitioned regions from the merge candidate list (Paragraph [0353] discloses two partitions in which two motion vectors are derived.).
Regarding claim 17, LIAO discloses the video encoding method of claim 16, wherein correcting the motion vector, when the two partitioned regions use different motion vector difference information, comprises: correcting the motion vector for each of the two partitioned regions by using the different motion vector difference information (Paragraph [0353] discloses two partitions using their own difference information.).
Regarding claim 18, LIAO discloses the video encoding method of claim 16, wherein correcting the motion vector, when the two partitioned regions use same motion vector difference information, comprises: correcting the motion vector for each of the two partitioned regions by using the same motion vector difference information (Paragraph [0354] discloses the blending mode, which uses a shared weight for both regions.).
Regarding claim 20, LIAO discloses a method for transmitting a bitstream associated with video data, the method comprising:
generating the bitstream by encoding the video data (Paragraph [0104] discloses transmitting a video bitstream, which represents encoded data.); and
transmitting the bitstream to a video decoding apparatus, wherein generating the bitstream comprises (Paragraph [0104] discloses transmitting a video bitstream, which represents encoded data.):
determining whether to apply a combined inter/intra prediction (CIIP) mode or a geometric partitioning mode (Paragraphs [0145]-[0146] disclose wherein geometric partitioning mode is utilized in parallel with CIIP or other modes.);
determining a motion vector from a merge candidate list (Paragraph [0121] discloses deriving a motion vector for a partition.);
correcting the motion vector by using motion vector difference information (Paragraph [0346] discloses coding with a Merge mode with Motion Vector Difference (MMVD), which is used to provide necessary motion correction.);
generating a prediction block of a current block based on a corrected motion vector (FIG. 3B; Paragraphs [0105]-[0108], wherein BPUs are equivalent to blocks for purposes of examination.); and
wherein the motion vector information includes direction information and distance information (Paragraph [0095], wherein motion vectors by definition are direction and distance.).
However, in the same field of endeavor and in attempting to solve a similar problem using difference values, LIAO specifically fails to but JEONG does disclose wherein the motion vector difference information includes direction information and distance information (Pages 1158-1159, Sections 3.1 and 3.2); and
wherein the direction information indicates one of a plurality of directions including two horizontal directions and two vertical directions (Table 3, wherein there are two directions along the x-axis and two along the y-axis.).
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize wherein a motion vector difference represents distance and direction as it is a well-known concept that is widely used in the art that would yield predictable results in any given implementation.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIAO and JEONG as applied to claims 7, 8 and 17 above, and further in view of Huang et al., (US 2020/0374528 A1), referred to as HUANG hereinafter.
Regarding claim 9, LIAO in view of JEONG discloses the video decoding method of claim 7. However, LIAO in view of JEONG fails to but HUANG does specifically disclose wherein generating the prediction block of the current block comprises:
generating an inter-prediction block for each of the two partitioned regions by using the corrected motion vector (HUANG, Paragraph [0100] discloses generating a block, in which the technique can be merely distributed to two regions.); and
generating the prediction block of the current block by combining or weighted averaging inter-prediction blocks for the two partitioned regions (HUANG, Paragraph [0100] discloses generating a block, in which the technique can be merely distributed to two regions.).
The disclosure of HUANG is analogous art as it is both in the same field of endeavor and attempts to resolve a similar problem.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LIAO in view of JEONG in light of HUANG because the emergence of advanced compression standards requires more efficient tools and means of transmitting data (HUANG, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 10, LIAO in view of JEONG discloses the video decoding method of claim 8, wherein generating the prediction block of the current block comprises:
generating an inter-prediction block for each of the two partitioned regions by using the corrected motion vector (HUANG, Paragraph [0100] discloses generating a block, in which the technique can be merely distributed to two regions.); and
generating the prediction block of the current block by combining or weighted averaging inter-prediction blocks for the two partitioned regions (HUANG, Paragraph [0100] discloses generating a block, in which the technique can be merely distributed to two regions.).
The disclosure of HUANG is analogous art as it is both in the same field of endeavor and attempts to resolve a similar problem.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LIAO in light of HUANG because the emergence of advanced compression standards requires more efficient tools and means of transmitting data (HUANG, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 19, LIAO in view of JEONG discloses the video encoding method of claim 17. However, LIAO in view of JEONG fails to but HUANG does specifically disclose when the CIIP mode is applied, generating the prediction block of the current block comprises:
generating an inter-prediction block for the current block based on the corrected motion vector (HUANG, Paragraph [0100]);
generating an intra-prediction block for the current block based on at least one reference block adjacent to the current block (HUANG, Paragraph [0100]); and
generating the prediction block of the current block by weighted averaging the inter-prediction block and the intra-prediction block (HUANG, Paragraph [0100]).
The disclosure of HUANG is analogous art as it is both in the same field of endeavor and attempts to resolve a similar problem.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify LIAO in view of JEONG in light of HUANG because the emergence of advanced compression standards requires more efficient tools and means of transmitting data (HUANG, Paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
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 JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486