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 01 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, the Applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to teach the limitation wherein sizes of the second set of subblocks are smaller than sizes of the first set of subblocks. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Liu paragraph [0286] discloses, “In different steps, the refined MVs may be derived at different sub-block size.” While this section does not specify smaller or larger size, one of ordinary skill may reasonably interpret as covering changes to both smaller and larger sizes.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, the Applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to teach that the second pass performed after first pass. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Liu discloses that the motion vector refinement process may be performed in an iterative fashion (Liu: paragraphs [0277]-[0285]). Thus, Liu indicates a first pass and then multiple subsequent passes up to N times.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20210235083 A1).
Re claim 1, Liu discloses a video processing method, comprising:
dividing a coding block into a first set of subblocks and a second set of subblocks (Liu: paragraph [0281]-[0286]),
wherein sizes of the second set of subblocks are smaller than sizes of the first set of subblocks (Liu: paragraph [0286]);
performing a first pass of optical flow-based motion vector refinement on the first set of subblocks (Liu: paragraph [0284]; paragraphs [0233]-[0235]); and
performing, after the first pass (Liu: paragraphs [0277]-[0285], iterations), a second pass of optical flow-based motion vector refinement on the second set of subblocks (Liu: paragraph [0284]; paragraphs [0233]-[0235]).
generating a first refined motion vector based on:
a first motion refinement derived from the first pass of optical flow-based motion vector refinement (Liu: paragraph [0272]; paragraph [0276]; paragraph [0284]; Fig. 28), and
a second motion refinement derived from the second pass of optical flow-based motion vector refinement (Liu: paragraph [0272]; paragraph [0276]; paragraph [0284]; Fig. 28); and
performing motion compensation by using the first refined motion vector, to encode or decode a bitstream associated with the coding block (Liu: paragraph [0272], motion compensation; paragraph [0499], encoding the video block into the bitstream representation of the video block and decoding the video block from the bitstream representation of the video block).
Re claim 3, Liu discloses
dividing the coding block into a third set of subblocks (Liu: paragraph [0281]-[0286]); and
performing a third pass of optical flow-based motion vector refinement on the third set of subblocks (Liu: paragraph [0284]; paragraphs [0233]-[0235]).
Re claim 4, Liu discloses that
each of the first set of subblocks has a size of 2×2, 4×4, 8×8, or 16×16 (Liu: paragraphs [0307]-[0311]);
each of the second set of subblocks has a size of 2×2, 4×4, 8×8, or 16×16 (Liu: paragraphs [0307]-[0311]); and
each of the third set of subblocks has a size of 2×2, 4×4, 8×8, or 16×16 (Liu: paragraphs [0307]-[0311]).
Re claim 5, Liu discloses that the optical flow-based motion vector refinement is bi-directional (Liu: paragraphs [0233]-[0235]).
Re claim 6, Liu discloses that before the first, second, and third passes of optical flow-based motion vector refinement are performed, performing one or more passes of decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) on the coding block (Liu: paragraph [0272]).
Re claim 7, Liu discloses that performing the one or more passes of DMVR on the coding block comprises:
performing a first pass of bilateral matching motion vector refinement on the coding block (Liu: paragraph [0255]);
dividing the coding block into a fourth set of subblocks (Liu: paragraph [0281]-[0286]); and
performing a second pass of bilateral matching motion vector refinement on the fourth set of subblocks (Liu: paragraph [0284]; paragraph [0255]).
Re claim 8, Liu discloses
wherein the first, second, and third passes of optical flow-based motion vector refinement belong to a number of passes of optical flow-based motion vector refinement performed on the coding block (Liu: paragraph [0284]; paragraphs [0233]-[0235]), and
the method further comprises:
determining the number of passes based on a size of the coding block (Liu: paragraphs [0296]-[0298]).
Re claim 9, Liu discloses that determining, based on whether a predetermined condition is satisfied, a subblock size for each of the first set of subblocks, the second set of subblocks, or the third set of subblocks (Liu: paragraph [0312]).
Re claim 10, Liu discloses that the predetermined condition comprises at least one of: the coding block is coded using a bi-prediction mode; the coding block has a size exceeding a predetermined threshold; the coding block has a size less than a predetermined threshold (Liu: paragraphs [0307]-[0312]); weighted prediction is disabled for the coding block; combined inter and intra (CIIP) is disabled for the coding block; local luma compensation is enabled for the coding block; subblock motion compensation is applied for the coding block; symmetrical motion vector difference is not used; or the coding block is not coded as merge mode with motion vector difference.
Re claim 11, Liu discloses
generating inter prediction samples based on a refined motion vector (Liu: Fig. 32, step 3204); and
encoding the bitstream based on the inter prediction samples (Liu: paragraph [0499]).
Re claim 12, Liu discloses that decoding the bitstream comprises:
reconstructing the coding block using the first refined motion vector (Liu: Fig. 31, step 3104).
Claim 13 recites the corresponding apparatus for implementing the method of claim 1. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 13. Accordingly, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 3 above.
Claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 4 above.
Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 5 above.
Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 6 above.
Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 7 above.
Claim 20 recites the transmitting method for transmitting the bitstream generated by the method of claim 1. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 20. Liu also discloses transmitting or providing processed information/data to another device, such as an actuator or external display (Liu: paragraph [0414]). Accordingly, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1 above.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1199. 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights