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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 20 recitation of “bitstream generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the computer readable recording medium storing the data (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the video block, candidates and other information manipulated by the steps.
To be given patentable weight, computer-readable recording medium and the data (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the storage medium to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed data in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored data and storage medium. Therefor the structure of the data, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang et al. US 20200204820 which recites a storage medium storing a data (¶ 0574; ¶ 0577).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 10, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. US 2020/0204820.
As to claim 1, Zhang teaches a method for video processing, comprising: determining, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a plurality of candidates of the target video block; [fig. 1; ¶ 0044-0047; ¶ 0097-0105; ¶ 0121; ¶ 0295] determining a candidate list from the plurality of candidates by using a plurality of thresholds; [¶ 0309-0321] and performing the conversion based on the candidate list. [fig. 1; ¶ 0044-0047; ¶ 0309-0329]
As to claim 3, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein the plurality of candidates comprises a plurality of motion vector predictions (MVP) candidates, and the candidate list comprises a motion candidate list, [¶ 0124-0125] wherein determining the candidate list comprises: determining the motion candidate list by performing an MVP candidate pruning process on the plurality of MVP candidates based on the plurality of thresholds, wherein the motion candidate list comprises one of: a merge candidate list, an advanced MVP (AMVP) candidate list, an extended merge candidate list, an extended AMVP candidate list, a sub-block merge candidate list, an affine merge candidate list, a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) candidate list, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) candidate list, a template matching merge candidate list, or a bilateral matching merge candidate list. [¶ 0124-0125; ¶ 0309-0321]
As to claim 5, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein one threshold is used for the plurality of candidates. [¶ 0309-0321]
As to claim 6, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein the plurality of thresholds comprises two thresholds. [¶ 0309-0321]
As to claim 7, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 6. Zhang teaches wherein one threshold of the two thresholds is used for a first subset of candidates of the plurality of candidates, and another threshold of the two thresholds is used for a second subset of candidates of the plurality of candidates, wherein the second subset of candidates comprises rest candidates of the plurality of candidates excluding the first subset of candidates. [¶ 0309-0321]
As to claim 10, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches further comprising: determining the plurality of thresholds based on decoded information of the target video block, wherein the decoded information comprises at least one of: a block dimension of the target video block, a coding tool of the target video block, a variance of motion information of a group of candidates of the target video block, or a variance of motion information of candidates of the target video block being of a candidate category, wherein the coding tool comprises at least one of: a combination of intra and inter predication (CIIP) merge mode coding tool, or a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) coding tool. [¶ 0309-0321]
As to claim 17, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the target video block into the bitstream, or decoding the target video block from the bitstream. [fig. 1; ¶ 0044-0047; ¶ 0097-0105; ¶ 0121; ¶ 0295]
As to claim 18, Zhang teaches an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: determine, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a plurality of candidates of the target video block; [fig. 1; ¶ 0044-0047; ¶ 0097-0105; ¶ 0121; ¶ 0295] determine a candidate list from the plurality of candidates by using a plurality of thresholds; [¶ 0309-0321] and perform the conversion based on the candidate list. [fig. 1; ¶ 0044-0047; ¶ 0309-0329]
As to claim 19, Zhang teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises: determining, during a conversion between a target video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a plurality of candidates of the target video block; [fig. 1; ¶ 0044-0047; ¶ 0097-0105; ¶ 0121; ¶ 0295] determining a candidate list from the plurality of candidates by using a plurality of thresholds; [¶ 0309-0321] and performing the conversion based on the candidate list. [fig. 1; ¶ 0044-0047; ¶ 0309-0329]
As to claim 20, Zhang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises: determining a plurality of candidates of a target video block of the video; determining a candidate list from the plurality of candidates by using a plurality of thresholds; and generating the bitstream based on the candidate list. [¶ 0574; ¶ 0577; see Claim Interpretation above]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 2020/0204820 in view of Chang et al. WO 2022/266592.
As to claim 2, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein determining the candidate list comprises: determining a first difference between a first candidate of the plurality of candidates and a second candidate in the candidate list; and if the first difference is greater than or equal to a first threshold of the plurality of thresholds, adding the first candidate into the candidate list, wherein determining the first difference comprises one of: determining an absolute difference between at least one component of a first motion vector (MV) of the first candidate and at least one component of a second MV of the second candidate; or determining an absolute difference between all components of the first MV of the first candidate and all components of the second MV of the second candidate, wherein the first candidate is absent from the candidate list if the first difference is less than the first threshold.
Chang teaches wherein determining the candidate list comprises: determining a first difference between a first candidate of the plurality of candidates and a second candidate in the candidate list; [¶ 0169-0170] and if the first difference is greater than or equal to a first threshold of the plurality of thresholds, adding the first candidate into the candidate list, wherein determining the first difference comprises one of: determining an absolute difference between at least one component of a first motion vector (MV) of the first candidate and at least one component of a second MV of the second candidate; or determining an absolute difference between all components of the first MV of the first candidate and all components of the second MV of the second candidate, wherein the first candidate is absent from the candidate list if the first difference is less than the first threshold. [¶ 0169-0170]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Chang with the teachings of Zhang allowing for improved coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 2020/0204820 in view of Zhou et al. US 2012/0320984.
As to claim 13, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches further comprising: determining at least one group of motion vector prediction (MVP) candidates of the target video block; [¶ 0124]
Zhang does not explicitly teach determining an MVP candidate list based on the at least one group of MVP candidate and at least one virtual MVP candidate, wherein the conversion is performed based on the MVP candidate list.
Zhou teaches determining an MVP candidate list based on the at least one group of MVP candidate and at least one virtual MVP candidate, wherein the conversion is performed based on the MVP candidate list. [¶ 0103-0105]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Zhou with the teachings of Zhang allowing for improved coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 2020/0204820 in view of Nakamura et al. US 2014/0205014.
As to claim 15, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches further comprising: determining a plurality of motion vector prediction (MVP) candidates of the target video block. [¶ 0124-0125]
Zhang does not explicitly teach determining a group of MVP candidates from the plurality of MVP candidates based on a threshold number, wherein the conversion is performed based on the group of MVP candidates.
Nakamura teaches determining a group of MVP candidates from the plurality of MVP candidates based on a threshold number, wherein the conversion is performed based on the group of MVP candidates. [abstract; ¶ 0089; ¶ 0255-0261]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Nakamura with the teachings of Zhang allowing for improved coding efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNER HOLDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571.272.7383. 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.
/ANNER HOLDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483