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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In light of the changes made to claim 15, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 18 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, 4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al. (“Chien”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0221110) in view of Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0295088).
In regards to claim 1, a system is taught by Chien as seen in ¶0077-0080 wherein two inter prediction modes may be used: 1) AMVP mode which may be used for either list 0 or list 1 prediction, i.e. prediction is in one direction, either forward or backwards, and uses a motion vector [MV] candidate list to thus create and eventually choose just one motion vector in a specific prediction direction; and 2) merge mode which may use both reference picture lists, list 0 and list 1, and also uses a motion vector candidate list from which then motion prediction data comprises both directions, thus creating two motion vectors for use, one in each direction. Chien then shows in ¶0152 and 0158 that motion derivation that uses a uni-prediction technique, i.e. one directional derivation such as AMVP, may be extended out into a bi-prediction technique through mirroring of the motion vector information included in the candidate list with an opposite sign, thus creating in the second direction --- both forward and backwards --- using the same motion vector data but with an opposite sign. Chien, however, fails to specify that this second direction would mandatorily be through the merge mode. In a similar endeavor Zhang teaches in ¶0225 in view of 0157 and 0161, that the current block [CU] may be in AMVP mode, and thus uni-directional, the candidate list may be updated to include the original AMVP candidates followed by merge candidates, from which ¶0230 then describes that when deriving motion candidates from the list of the merge candidates previously described, the motion information may be the same as that described in the current AMVP mode candidate list direction. In other words, the current block may use AMVP for motion vector derivation in one direction, from which then the merge candidate data incorporated from the merge candidate list may then be used for the other direction with the same [mirrored] value, thus incorporating such a teaching that more explicitly states the use of the second directional motion vector derivation being of merge mode candidate list derivation, while the initial first directional motion vector derivation is from AMVP candidate list derivation.
Therefore together Chien and Zhang teach an image encoding method (See FIG. 1 of Chien), comprising:
determining prediction information to be used for encoding of a target block in a current picture (See ¶0004, 0006 and 0035-0038 of Chien);
generating encoded encoding information by performing encoding for the target block based on the prediction information (See ¶0035-0037 in view of FIG. 1 and 13 of Chien); and
generating a bitstream including the encoded coding information (See FIG. 1 and 13 of Chien), wherein
the encoding comprises bi-directional inter-prediction for the target block using a first reference picture and a second reference picture (See ¶0069, 0095 and 0142-0143 of Chien),
a first motion information for a first direction of the bi-directional inter-prediction is determined (See ¶0152. 0158 and 0160 in view of 0069, 0095 and 0142-0143 of Chien),
a second motion information for a second direction of the bi-directional inter-prediction is determined based on the first motion information (See ¶0152, 0158 and 0160 in view of 0069, 0095 and 0142-0143 of Chien wherein the second direction may be mirrored motion information, i.e. a second motion vector with an opposite sign [in the opposite direction]),
the first motion information comprises an Advanced Motion Vector Prediction (AMVP) predictor information (See ¶0077-0080, 0089, 0112 and 0118 of Chien in view of ¶0157, 0161 and 0230 of Zhang), and
the second motion information is derived based on a merge candidate in a merge list (See ¶0112 and 0118 of Chien wherein the one or more candidate motion vectors within the candidate lists may be determined from any combination of techniques such as at least merge mode candidates as well as AMVP candidates, this is taken in view of 0157, 0161 and 0230 of Zhang wherein the merge candidate list is incorporated into the AMVP candidate list in order to supply motion information for the other direction [thus supplying for both list 0 and list 1 reference lists-); and
the merge candidate is one of a plurality of merge candidates of the merge list (See ¶0077-0080 of Chien and ¶0064 of Zhang which both describe the merge candidate list to comprise of a plurality of merge candidates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Zhang into Chien because it allows for a better tradeoff between coding performance and complexity as described in at least ¶0207.
In regards to claim 2, Chien fails to explicitly teach the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of merge candidates is sorted according to a predefined criterion.
In a similar endeavor Zhang teaches wherein the plurality of merge candidates is sorted according to a predefined criterion (See ¶0064).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Zhang into Chien because it allows for a better tradeoff between coding performance and complexity as described in at least ¶0207.
In regards to claim 4, Chien teaches the image encoding method of claim 1, wherein: bilateral matching cost of the merge candidate is derived based on a coding parameter about the bi-directional inter-prediction with weights (See ¶0139 in view of FIG. 12 wherein bilateral template matching is based on a weighted combination of the two prediction blocks from the two directions; also note in ¶0122, 0131 and 0135 wherein the matching cost is minimized between the motion vector pairs, thus a matching cost is also taken for both the first and second motion vectors).
In regards to claims 8, 9 and 11, the claims are rejected under the same basis as claims 1, 2 and 4 by Chien in view of Zhang, wherein the decoding version of encoding processes may be seen as in FIG. 1 and 14.
In regards to claim 15, 16 and 18, the claims are rejected under the same basis as claims 1, 2 and 4 by Chien in view of Zhang, wherein the computer-readable storage medium may be taught as seen in at least ¶0198-0202.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19 and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483