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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 § 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) 1-2, 5-19, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0103767 A1 (“Chang”) in view of US 2021/0037238 A1 (“Park”).
Regarding claim 1, Chang 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 encoding device 104 and decoding device 112 in Fig. 1), a list of template matching (TM) merge candidates for the target block in a TM merge mode (e.g. see at least TM merge candidate list, paragraphs [0096], [0105]-[0106], [0134]);
reordering a TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates (e.g. see at least reordering TM merge candidate list, paragraphs [0096], [0105]-[0106], [0134]) based on a determination whether a first condition is satisfied to perform TM refinement for the TM merge candidate (e.g. see at least enabling condition, paragraphs [0096], [0105]-[0106], [0134]); and
performing the conversion based on the reordered TM merge candidate (e.g. see at least encoding device 104 and decoding device 112 in Fig. 1),
wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises:
reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates based on at least one cost (e.g. see at least sum of absolute differences (SAD), paragraphs [0105]-[0108]), the at least one cost being determined based on TM refinement of at least one TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates (e.g. see TM is a decoder-side MV derivation method to refine the MV information of each candidate in the TM merge candidate list by finding the closest match (e.g. see TM cost, paragraphs [0105]-[0180]) between a template in the current picture and a block with the same size to the template in a reference picture, paragraphs [0096], [0105]-[0106], [0134]).
Although Chang discloses reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates based on the determination whether the first condition is satisfied to perform TM refinement for the TM merge candidate, it is noted Chang differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose based on a determination whether a second condition is satisfied to perform decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) or multi-pass DMVR for the TM merge candidate.
Park however, teaches
based on a determination whether a second condition is satisfied to perform decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) or multi-pass DMVR for the TM merge candidate (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 checking whether the DMVR is performed on the merge candidate, paragraphs [0210]-[0213]).
Further, although Chang discloses wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises: reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates based on at least one cost, the at least one cost being determined based on TM refinement of at least one TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates, it is noted Chang differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose if the reordering of the TM merge candidate is performed after the TM refinement of the TM merge candidate.
Park however, teaches
if the reordering of the TM merge candidate is performed after the TM refinement of the TM merge candidate (e.g. see reordering and refinement in Figs. 5-6, and see 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]), reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates based on at least one cost, the at least one cost being determined based on TM refinement of at least one TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates (e.g. see at least reordering after refinement in Fig. 21 based on cost, paragraphs [0214]-[0215]; thus, in view of Park teaching that refine process may be performed first, the reordering of the TM merge candidates would be based on the TM cost (or SAD) determined based on the TM refinement) (for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted the claim includes contingent limitations “if the reordering of the TM merge candidate is performed after the TM refinement of the TM merge candidate…” 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)).
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 Chang and Park before him/her, to modify the Motion vector candidate reordering of Chang with the teachings of Park in order to provide a highly efficient image compression technique for effectively transmitting, storing, and reproducing information of high resolution and high quality images.
Regarding claim 2, although Chang discloses wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises: if the first condition is satisfied (e.g. see at least enabling condition, paragraphs [0096], [0105]-[0106], [0134]), it is noted Chang differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose
if both the first and second conditions are satisfied, reordering the TM merge candidate after at least one of the TM refinement and the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR of the TM merge candidate.
Park however, teaches
wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises:
if both the first and second conditions are satisfied, reordering the TM merge candidate after at least one of the TM refinement and the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR of the TM 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]) (for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted the claim includes contingent limitations “if both the first and second conditions are satisfied…” and the claimed invention does not require these conditions to occur; the BRI of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed (see MPEP 2111.04)).
The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 5, Chang in view of Park further teaches wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises:
reordering the TM merge candidate after the TM refinement of the TM merge candidate (Park: e.g. see reordering and refinement in Figs. 5-6, and see 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]) if the TM refinement is independent from the DMVR or multi-pass DMVR candidate (Park: e.g. see at least TM refinement in Figs. 5-6 is different or independent from refinement by DMVR shown in Fig. 21).
The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 6, although Chang discloses wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises: if the first condition is satisfied (e.g. see at least enabling condition, paragraphs [0096], [0105]-[0106], [0134]), it is noted Chang differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose
if the first condition is satisfied and the second condition is unsatisfied, reordering the TM merge candidate after the TM refinement of the TM merge candidate, or
if the first condition is satisfied, reordering the TM merge candidate after the TM refinement of the TM merge candidate.
Park however, teaches
wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises:
if the first condition is satisfied and the second condition is unsatisfied (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 checking whether the DMVR is performed on the merge candidate, paragraphs [0210]-[0213]), reordering the TM merge candidate after the TM refinement of the TM merge candidate (e.g. see at least reordering and refinement in Figs. 5-6, and see 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]), or
if the first condition is satisfied (e.g. see at least whether the template is available may be determined based on conditions, paragraphs [0137]-[0141]), reordering the TM merge candidate after the TM refinement of the TM merge candidate (e.g. see at least reordering and refinement in Figs. 5-6, and see 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])
(for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted the claim includes contingent limitations “if the first condition is satisfied and the second condition is unsatisfied, … or if the first condition is satisfied, …” and the claimed invention does not require these conditions to occur; the BRI of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed (see MPEP 2111.04)).
The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 7, Chang further discloses wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises:
if the TM merge candidate has subblock-based motion (e.g. see at least motion information of the subblocks as shown in Fig. 9, paragraphs [0105]-[0108]), reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates based on a cost associated with the TM merge candidate (e.g. see at least sum of absolute differences (SAD), paragraphs [0105]-[0108]), the cost being determined based on a plurality of sub-templates for the target block (e.g. see at least templates as shown in Fig. 9),
wherein each of the plurality of sub-templates possesses individual motion information (e.g. see individual motion shown in Fig. 9)
(for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted the claim includes contingent limitations “if the TM merge candidate has subblock-based motion, …” 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 8, Chang further discloses wherein the cost associated with the TM merge candidate is determined based on a cost of each of the plurality of sub-templates, or
wherein the cost associated with the TM 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 sum of absolute differences (SAD) between samples of a template of the current block and their corresponding reference samples and see templates shown in Fig. 9, paragraphs [0105]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 9, Chang 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 sum of absolute differences (SAD) between samples of a template of the current block and their corresponding reference samples and see templates shown in Fig. 9, paragraphs [0105]-[0108]).
Regarding claim 10, Chang further discloses further comprising:
determining the corresponding reference sub-template using motion information of a plurality of subblocks in the target block (e.g. see at least motion information of plurality of subblocks shown in Fig. 9),
wherein the plurality of subblocks are arranged in the first row and/or the first column of the target block (e.g. see first row and the first column of current block used to derive the reference samples of each sub-template, paragraph [0108]), or
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 (e.g. see at least motion information of plurality of subblocks shown in Fig. 9); and
determining the corresponding reference sub-template based on the motion information of the target sub-template (e.g. see corresponding reference sub-template determined based on the motion information of plurality of subblocks shown in Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Chang in view of Park further teaches wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises:
wherein the at least one cost is determined based on at least one TM cost of the at least one TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates, the at least one TM cost being determined in the TM refinement of the at least one TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates (Park: e.g. see at least reordering after refinement in Fig. 21 based on cost, paragraphs [0214]-[0215]; similar reordering based on cost would be performed if reordering of TM merge candidate is performed after TM refinement).
The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 12, Chang in view of Park further teaches wherein the at least one TM cost comprises at least one minimum TM cost of the at least one TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates, a minimum TM cost of the at least one minimum TM cost being used to evaluate which refined motion is the best in the TM refinement of a TM merge candidate of the at least one TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates (Park: e.g. see at least reordering after refinement in Fig. 21 based on cost, paragraphs [0214]-[0215]; similar reordering based on cost, e.g. small to large costs or smallest cost is first in an order, paragraphs [0100]-[0101], would be performed if reordering of TM merge candidate is performed after TM refinement), or wherein the at least one cost is determined by modifying the at least one TM cost (Park: e.g. see at least normalizing cost, paragraphs [0154]-[0158]).
The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 13, Chang in view of Park further teaches wherein if templates are different in the TM refinement and TM reordering of the TM merge candidate (Park: e.g. see different templates as shown in Figs. 7-9), the at least one cost is determined by scaling the at least one TM cost using a factor (Park: e.g. see at least cost calculation associated with Figs. 7-9, e.g. see normalizing cost including scaling, paragraphs [0154]-[0158]),
wherein the templates in the TM refinement and TM reordering of the TM merge candidate have different sizes and/or dimensions (Park: e.g. see different templates as shown in Figs. 7-9)
(for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted the claim includes contingent limitations “if templates are different in the TM refinement and TM reordering of the TM merge candidate, …” 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)).
The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 14, Chang in view of Park further teaches wherein the at least one TM cost comprises a plurality of TM costs of partial TM merge candidates in the list of TM merge candidates, or
wherein the at least one TM cost comprises at least one minimum TM cost of a plurality of TM merge candidates in the list of TM merge candidates, TM refinement being performed for the plurality of TM merge candidates (Park: e.g. see at least reordering after refinement in Fig. 21 based on cost, paragraphs [0214]-[0215]; similar reordering based on cost, e.g. small to large costs or smallest cost is first in an order, paragraphs [0100]-[0101], would be performed if reordering of TM merge candidate is performed after TM refinement).
The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 15, Chang in view of Park further teaches wherein the TM refinement for the plurality of TM merge candidates is last refinement of the plurality of TM merge candidates, or
wherein the TM refinement for the plurality of TM merge candidates is only refinement of the plurality of TM merge candidates (Park: e.g. see at least reordering after refinement in Fig. 21 based on cost, paragraphs [0214]-[0215]; similar reordering based on cost, e.g. small to large costs or smallest cost is first in an order, paragraphs [0100]-[0101], would be performed if reordering of TM merge candidate is performed after TM refinement. As shown in Fig. 21, there is no refinement performed after the list is reordered or the prior refinement is the only refinement of the candidates).
The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 16, Chang in view of Park further teaches wherein the at least one cost is determined using partial samples of at least one template in the TM refinement of the list of TM merge candidates (Park: 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]).
The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 17, Chang further discloses wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises:
if both the first and second conditions are unsatisfied, reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates without the TM refinement and DMVR or multi-pass DMVR of the TM merge candidate, or
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 encoding device 104 and decoding device 112 in Fig. 1)
(for completeness and compact prosecution, it is also noted the claim includes contingent limitations “if both the first and second conditions are unsatisfied, …” and the claimed invention does not require these conditions to occur; the BRI of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed (see MPEP 2111.04)).
Regarding claims 18-19, 21, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0103767 A1 (“Chang”) in view of US 2021/0037238 A1 (“Park”) in further view of US 2024/0357084 A1 (“Chubach”).
Regarding claim 3, although Chang discloses wherein the multi-pass DMVR comprises block-based bilateral matching (BM) refinement and subblock-based BM refinement, and the TM refinement (e.g. see at least template matching and block-based and subblock-based bilateral matching methods, paragraph [0096]),
and although Chang in view of Park teaches
and reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises:
reordering the TM merge candidate after at least one of the block-based BM refinement, the TM refinement and the subblock-based BM refinement of the TM merge candidate (e.g. see reordering and refinement in Figs. 5-6, and see 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]), it is noted Chang differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose
TM refinement is between the block-based BM refinement and the subblock-based BM refinement, wherein the block-based BM refinement, the TM refinement and the subblock-based BM refinement are performed sequentially.
Chubach however, teaches
TM refinement is between the block-based BM refinement and the subblock-based BM refinement, wherein the block-based BM refinement, the TM refinement and the subblock-based BM refinement are performed sequentially (e.g. see at least TM mode between block-based and subblock-based bilateral matching methods, paragraph [0012]).
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 Chang, Park and Chubach before him/her, to incorporate the teachings of Chubach into the Motion vector candidate reordering of Chang as modified by Park in order to provide an independent process or an extra MV refinement process.
Regarding claim 4, Chang in view of Park further teaches
wherein reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates comprises:
reordering the TM merge candidate after at least one of the block-based BM refinement and the TM refinement of the TM merge candidate, or
wherein the subblock-based BM refinement is performed conditionally,
wherein the subblock-based BM refinement is disabled if a minimum matching cost of the block-based BM refinement is smaller than a threshold, and/or
the subblock-based BM refinement is performed if the minimum matching cost of the block- based BM refinement is larger than or equal to the threshold (Park: e.g. see reordering and refinement in Figs. 5-6, and see 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 motivation above in the rejection of claim 3 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 8-10 of the Remarks that paragraphs [0205], [0210]-[0215] of Park is silent about reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates based on the cost determined based on TM refinement process and the reordering cost is not determined based on the TM refinement performed before.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the Advisory, dated 12/9/25, Fig. 21 of Park illustrates reordering after refinement by DMVR (see paragraphs [0214]-[0215]). The DMVR uses DMVR cost (see paragraphs [0204]-[0205]). Thus, the reordering that follows the refinement would be based on the DMVR cost in the broadest reasonable sense.
The response to the Advisory on pages 10-11 further asserts that, in Fig. 21 of Park, the "reordering cost for each of the merge candidates is derived based on template matching method or bi-lateral matching method after the DMVR process. Park is completely silent about 'reordering that follows the DMVR would be based on the DMVR cost'."
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claims use a broad language "based on" in the limitations "… , reordering the TM merge candidate in the list of TM merge candidates based on at least one cost, …" and do not specifically recite how exactly the reordering uses the cost. Therefore, as long as the prior art teaches that reordering is "based on" the cost, it meets the limitations in the broadest reasonable sense.
For example, in Fig. 21, paragraphs [0214]-[0215] of Park, after refinement by DMVR using DMVR cost, the candidates that now include the refined candidates such as A1', B1', etc. 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 refined candidates that are refined using DMVR cost. Further, because the refinement using DMVR cost is performed first, so what immediately follows after, i.e. the reordering, is necessarily based on the previous step.
Therefore, in view of Park teaching that refine process may be performed first, the reordering of the TM merge candidates as disclosed by Chang would be based on the TM cost (or SAD) determined based on the TM refinement as disclosed by Chang if the refine process is performed first.
Finally, for the sake of argument, if Chang in view of Park do not teach the added limitations in claim 1 (which the examiner respectfully disagrees with as explained above), the claims remain unpatentable over Chang in view of Park because the added limitations "if the reordering of the TM merge candidate is performed after the TM refinement of the TM merge candidate, … TM 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0406434 A1, Laroche et al., Video coding and decoding
US 2023/0104476 A1, Chen et al., Grouping based adaptive reordering of merge candidate
US 2022/0417500 A1, Huang et al., Merge candidate reordering 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