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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites “if the condition is satisfied, reordering… before the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR process of the regular merge candidate” that does not further limit claim 1 because claim 1 recites that “if the condition is satisfied, reordering… after the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR process of the regular merge candidate”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 10-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2021/0037238 A1 (“Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a method for video processing, comprising: obtaining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video (e.g. see at least video encoding apparatus 100 in Fig. 1 or video decoding apparatus 200 in Fig. 2), a list of regular merge candidates for the target block in a regular merge mode (e.g. see at least merge candidate list, paragraphs [0092]-[0094] and Fig. 3);
reordering the list of regular merge candidates (e.g. see at least reordering/refinement of merge candidate list as illustrated in Fig. 3, paragraphs [0100]-[0102]; for example, see reordering/refinement in Fig. 19, paragraphs [0206]-[0209]), based on a determination whether a condition is satisfied to perform decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) or multi-pass DMVR process for a regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates (e.g. see at least checking whether the DMVR is performed on the merge candidate, paragraphs [0210]-[0213]); and
performing the conversion based on the reordered list of regular merge candidates (e.g. see at least video encoding apparatus 100 in Fig. 1 or video decoding apparatus 200 in Fig. 2),
wherein reordering the list of regular merge candidates comprises:
if the condition is satisfied (e.g. see at least checking whether the DMVR is performed on the merge candidate, e.g. see NO in S2010 in Fig. 20, paragraphs [0210]-[0213]), reordering (e.g. see reordering/refinement in Fig. 19, paragraphs [0206]-[0209]), based on at least one matching cost (e.g. see DMVR cost, paragraphs [0204]-[0205]), the regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates after the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR process of the regular merge candidate (e.g. see at least although as in the above-described embodiments, the merge candidate list of the current block is reordered, and then the refine process may be performed on the reordered merge candidate list, the refine process may be performed first on the merge candidate list, paragraphs [0210]-[0213]), the at least one matching cost being determined in DMVR or multi-pass DMVR of at least one regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates (e.g. see DMVR cost, paragraphs [0204]-[0205]) (for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted that the claim includes contingent limitations “if the condition…” and the claimed invention does not require this condition to occur; the BRI of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed (see MPEP 2111.04)).
Regarding claim 2, Park further discloses wherein reordering the list of regular merge candidates comprises:
if the condition is satisfied (e.g. see at least checking whether the DMVR is performed on the merge candidate, paragraphs [0210]-[0213]), reordering the regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates before the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR process of the regular merge candidate (e.g. see at least although as in the above-described embodiments, the merge candidate list of the current block is reordered, and then the refine process may be performed on the reordered merge candidate list, the refine process may be performed first on the merge candidate list, paragraphs [0210]-[0213]),
wherein partial or full original regular merge candidates in the list of regular merge candidates are reordered before a process of DMVR or multi-pass DMVR (e.g. see at least reordering/refinement of merge candidate list as illustrated in Fig. 3, paragraphs [0100]-[0102]; for example, see partial original merge candidates reordering/refinement in Fig. 19, paragraphs [0206]-[0209]) (for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted that the claim includes contingent limitations “if the condition…” and the claimed invention does not require this condition to occur; the BRI of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed (see MPEP 2111.04)).
Regarding claim 3, Park further discloses wherein partial or full original regular merge candidates in the list of regular merge candidates are reordered after a process of DMVR or multi-pass DMVR (e.g. see at least reordering/refinement of merge candidate list as illustrated in Fig. 3, paragraphs [0100]-[0102]; for example, see partial original merge candidates reordering/refinement as illustrated in Fig. 19, paragraphs [0206]-[0209]).
Regarding claim 4, Park further discloses wherein reordering the regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates comprises:
if the regular merge candidate has subblock-based motion information (e.g. see at least sub-block unit, paragraphs [0116]-[0118]), reordering the regular merge candidate based on a cost associated with the regular merge candidate, the cost being determined based on a plurality of sub-templates for the target block, wherein each of the plurality of sub-templates possesses individual motion information (e.g. see at least deriving a cost of a merge candidate based on left neighboring region and/or top neighboring region of the current block, paragraphs [0121]-[0122]) (for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted that the claim includes contingent limitations “if the regular merge candidate has subblock-based motion information…” and the claimed invention does not require this condition to occur; the BRI of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed (see MPEP 2111.04)).
Regarding claim 5, Park further discloses wherein the cost associated with the regular merge candidate is determined based on a cost of each of the plurality of sub-templates, or
wherein the cost associated with the regular merge candidate is determined as a sum of costs of at least some sub-templates of the plurality of sub-templates (e.g. see at least deriving a cost of a merge candidate based on left neighboring region and/or top neighboring region of the current block, paragraphs [0121]-[0122]; also see at least description of costs as illustrated in Fig. 8 according to position and size of templates, paragraphs [0143]-[0150]).
Regarding claim 6, Park further discloses wherein a cost of a target sub-template of the plurality of sub- templates is determined as a distortion metric between the target sub-template and a corresponding reference sub-template of the target sub-template,
wherein the distortion metric comprises at least one of a sum of absolute differences (SAD), a mean-removed sum of absolute difference (MR-SAD), a sum of absolute transformed differences (SATD), a mean-removed sum of absolute transformed differences (MR-SATD), a sum of squared difference (SSD) or a mean-removed sum of squared difference (MR-SSD) (e.g. see at least deriving a cost, i.e. SAD, of a merge candidate based on left neighboring region and/or top neighboring region of the current block, paragraphs [0121]-[0122]; also see at least description of costs as illustrated in Fig. 8 according to position and size of templates, paragraphs [0143]-[0150]).
Regarding claim 10, Park further discloses wherein the at least one matching cost comprises at least one minimum matching cost of the at least one regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates, a minimum matching cost of the at least one minimum matching cost being used to evaluate which refined motion is the best in the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR process of a regular merge candidate of the at least one regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates (e.g. see at least smallest among costs, paragraphs [0206]-[0209]), or wherein reordering the regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates comprises:
modifying the at least one matching cost; and
reordering the regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates based on the modified at least one matching cost,
wherein modifying the at least one matching cost comprises:
scaling the at least one matching cost using a factor (e.g. see at least normalizing cost including scaling, paragraphs [0154]-[0158]).
Regarding claim 11, Park further discloses wherein reordering the list of regular merge candidates comprises:
if the condition is unsatisfied (e.g. see at least checking whether the DMVR is performed on the merge candidate, paragraphs [0210]-[0213]), reordering the regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates (e.g. see at least reordering/refinement of merge candidate list as illustrated in Fig. 3, paragraphs [0100]-[0102]; for example, see reordering/refinement in Fig. 19, paragraphs [0206]-[0209]) based on a predefined cost (e.g. see at least cost, paragraphs [0095], [0097], [0198]) (for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted that the claim includes contingent limitations “if the condition…” and the claimed invention does not require this condition to occur; the BRI of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed (see MPEP 2111.04)).
Regarding claim 12, Park further discloses wherein if the condition is unsatisfied, the regular merge candidate is not reordered, or wherein reordering the list of regular merge candidates comprises: if the condition is unsatisfied, reordering the regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates without the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR process of the regular merge candidate (e.g. see at least checking whether the DMVR is performed on the merge candidate (S2000)… determine whether the motion information of the corresponding merge candidate is refine motion information (S2010). In a case where the motion information of the corresponding merge candidate is the refine motion information, the encoding/decoding device may derive the motion information of the current block based on the merge candidate list including the corresponding merge candidate (S2020), paragraphs [0210]-[0213]) (for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted that the claim includes contingent limitations “if the condition…” and the claimed invention does not require this condition to occur; the BRI of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed (see MPEP 2111.04)).
Regarding claim 13, Park further discloses wherein reordering the regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates after the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR process of the regular merge candidate comprises:
reordering the regular merge candidate based on bilateral matching cost of the regular merge candidate (e.g. see at least cost for the merge candidate through the bi-lateral matching method, paragraph [0198]), or
wherein reordering the regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates after the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR process of the regular merge candidate comprises:
reordering the regular merge candidate based on DMVR cost of the regular merge candidate (e.g. see at least cost derived through a decoder side motion vector refinement DMVR, paragraphs [0204]-[0205]).
Regarding claim 14, Park further discloses wherein reordering the list of regular merge candidates comprises:
if adaptive decoder-side motion vector refinement (ADMVR) is performed for at least one regular merge candidate in the list of regular merge candidates (e.g. see at least checking whether the DMVR is performed on the merge candidate, paragraphs [0210]-[0213]), reordering the at least one regular merge candidate based on at least one ADMVR cost of the at least one regular merge candidate (e.g. see at least cost derived through a decoder side motion vector refinement DMVR, paragraphs [0204]-[0205]) (for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted that the claim includes contingent limitations “if adaptive decoder-side motion vector refinement (ADMVR) is performed…” and the claimed invention does not require this condition to occur; the BRI of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed (see MPEP 2111.04)).
Regarding claim 15, Park further discloses further comprising:
performing at least one of DMVR and adaptive decoder-side motion vector refinement (ADMVR) for at least one regular merge candidate in a plurality of regular merge candidates for the target block (e.g. see at least checking whether the DMVR is performed on the merge candidate, paragraphs [0210]-[0213]);
reordering the plurality of regular merge candidates (e.g. see at least reordering/refinement of merge candidate list as illustrated in Fig. 3, paragraphs [0100]-[0102]; for example, see reordering/refinement in Fig. 19, paragraphs [0206]-[0209]) based on at least one of DMVR cost and ADMVR cost of the at least one regular merge candidate (e.g. see at least cost derived through a decoder side motion vector refinement DMVR, paragraphs [0204]-[0205]);
constructing a list of regular merge candidates based on the reordered plurality of regular merge candidates (e.g. see reordering/refinement in Fig. 19, paragraphs [0206]-[0209]).
Regarding claim 16, Park further discloses wherein the list of regular merge candidates for the target block in the regular merge mode are reordered based on template matching cost (e.g. see at least cost for a merge candidate of the current block through the template matching method, paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 17, Park further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (e.g. see at least video encoding apparatus 100 in Fig. 1 or video decoding apparatus 200 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 18-19, 21, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of US 2023/0103767 A1 (“Chang”).
Regarding claim 7, although Park discloses further comprising:
determining the corresponding reference sub-template (e.g. see at least reference block templates corresponding to left neighboring region and/or top neighboring region of the current block as shown at least in Figs. 4, 7-8, paragraphs [0121]-[0122], [0143]-[0150]) using motion information of a plurality of subblocks in the target block (e.g. see at least motion information of sub-block units, paragraphs [0116]-[0118]), it is noted Park differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose
wherein the plurality of subblocks are arranged in a first row and/or a first column of the target block.
Chang however, teaches
wherein the plurality of subblocks are arranged in a first row and/or a first column of the target block (e.g. see at least first row and first column as shown in Fig. 9, paragraph [0108]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Park and Chang before him/her, to modify the Image decoding method and apparatus based on inter prediction in image coding system of Park with the teachings of Chang in order to improve video processing such as video encoding and/or decoding by compressing video data into a form that uses a lower bit rate, while avoiding or minimizing degradations to video quality.
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Chang further teaches wherein determining the corresponding reference sub-template comprises:
determining motion information of the target sub-template from motion information of a subblock of the plurality of subblocks adjacent to the target sub-template; and
determining the corresponding reference sub-template based on the motion information of the target sub-template (Chang: e.g. see at least motion information of the subblocks in the first row and the first column of current block shown in Fig. 9 is used to derive the reference samples of each sub-template, paragraph [0108]).
The motivation above in the rejection of claim 7 applies here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response to the Final rejection, applicant asserts on pages 8-9 of the Remarks that Park does not disclose newly added limitations because paragraphs [0204]-[0205] of Park is silent about the cost used in the reordering process and that the cost in the reordering process is derived in a method different from the method of deriving through DMVR.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the Advisory, dated 12/9/25, the reordering of the Updated candidate list in Fig. 19 is based on whether one or more candidates are decided to be refined, which is based on DMVR cost (see paragraphs [0204]-[0205]). Further, as also noted, if refinement is performed first (see paragraph [0213]) using DMVR cost (see paragraphs [0204]-[0205]), then the reordering that follows would be based on the DMVR cost in the broadest reasonable sense.
The response to the Advisory on pages 9-10 further asserts that Park is "completely silent about directly performing the reordering process based DMVR cost. Park at paragraph [0205] even explicitly discloses that the cost in the reordering process of the merge candidate list is derived in a method different from the method of deriving through the DMVR."
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claims use a broad language "based on" in the limitations "… if the condition is satisfied, reordering, based on at least one matching cost, the regular merge candidate…" and do not specifically recite how exactly the reordering uses the matching cost. Therefore, as long as the prior art teaches that reordering is "based on" the matching cost, it meets the limitations in the broadest reasonable sense.
For example, in Fig. 19, paragraphs [0206]-[0209] of Park, after obtaining the refined B1 using DMVR cost, the candidates that now include the refined B1 are reordered; this reordering of the candidates (even using different cost than DMVR cost) is still "based on" the DMVR cost because the candidates being reordered include the candidate refined B1 that is refined using the DMVR cost. Similarly, if the refinement is performed first using DMVR cost (see paragraphs [0210]-[0213]), then the reordering that follows would be based on the DMVR cost for the same reason as above, i.e. that the candidates being reordered include one or more candidates refined using DMVR cost, and additionally, because refinement using DMVR cost is performed first, so what immediately follows after, i.e. the reordering, is necessarily based on the previous step.
The argument on page 10 about interpreting "refining based on DMVR cost as reordering based on DMVR is NOT reasonable for a POSA" is not persuasive because the examiner is not interpreting Park this way. As explained above, because the claims use a broad language "based on", their BRI is met by the teachings of Park as explained above.
Similarly, the argument on page 11 "even if the merge candidate B1 is reordered to be first after the refinement, the reordering process is still NOT based on the cost determined in DMVR. Park at best discloses that the refined candidate B1 is able to be reordered first, and is completely silent about reordering the refined candidate B1 based on DMVR cost. Thus, the content of Fig. 19 is also completely silent about a solution of reordering the merge candidate based on DMVR cost" is not persuasive for the same reason as above, that is, because the claims use a broad language "based on", and their BRI is met by Park as explained above.
Finally, for the sake of argument, if Park does not disclose the added limitations in claim 1 (which the examiner respectfully disagrees with as explained above), Park still anticipates the claims because the added limitations "if the condition is satisfied, reordering, based on at least one matching cost, …. merge candidates." is a contingent limitation and the claimed invention does not require this condition to occur; the BRI of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed (see MPEP 2111.04); note also that claim 18 was not amended, i.e. it does not include the added limitations in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0417521 A1, Zhang et al., Hybrid inter bi-prediction in video coding
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 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, Anna M Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619