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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/15/202 ,with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5, 13-14, 28-31 and 36-43 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Chen does not teach ‘replacement’ of a TMVP candidate but rather that a TMVP candidate ‘fills in’ for an unavailable TMVP candidate with a predefined candidate. The examiner disagrees. First in par. 324 Chen explicitly indicates that “an unavailable TMVP may be replaced by a predefined candidate” (emphasis added). This disclosure of Chen indicates that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the use of a substitute TMVP candidate in place of an unavailable one as taught by Chen to be ‘replacing’ that vector. See MPEP 2111.01 (III) "[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Phillips v. AWH Corp.,415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
Further rather than merely using predefined candidates to ‘fill in’ for TMVP candidates that happen to be unavailable, Chen also discloses a pruning operation in pars 327-328. In this pruning operation a TMVP candidate that is too similar to one already in the list may be removed. The removed candidate would be an unavailable candidate. Then a predefined candidate may be placed in the list at the position from which the pruned candidate was removed. The removal of an existing candidate and substitution of another meets even a more conventional definition of ‘replacement’. Thus the applicants arguments made in regard to Chen are not persuasive.
Finally as noted in the rejection for 112(a) below, the applicants argument that ‘replacing’ requires removal of a default TVMP from a candidate list followed by the addition of the derived symmetric TMVP at the same place in the list is not supported by the applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 13-14 and 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 13-14 and 28, as amended, require replacing a default TMVP candidate in a candidate list with a derived symmetric motion vector predictor. The applicant points to pg. 29 lines 6-11 and pg. 31 lines 12-15 to support the amended limitations.
Pg. 29 lines 6-11 disclose a displaced TMVP candidate derived from motion information of spatial neighboring positions which may be used ‘in replacement of’ a default TMVP candidate. This portion of the specification relates to displaced TMVP candidates not symmetric TMVP candidates which are described later in the specification starting on pg. 30 line 19, thus pg. 29 does not provide written description support for replacing a default candidate with a symmetric TMVP, but rather replacement using a displaced TMVP.
Further the phrase ‘in replacement of’ is subtly distinct from the claimed ‘replacing’. Using a common understanding of ‘replacing’, a default TMVP is already present in the candidate list, then it is removed from the list and another TMVP is added in place of the removed default TMVP. By contrast, the phrase ‘in replacement of’ suggests that the displaced TMVP is added to the candidate list instead of the default TMVP. The default TMVP is never added to the list and thus cannot be ‘replaced’. This later interpretation is further supported by lines 6-7 of pg. 29 which indicate that a if a displaced TMVP candidate isn’t found, the default TMVP candidate is used as a backup. Hence ‘in replacement of’ is not the same as ‘replacing’ as recited in the claims and does not provide written description support for the amendment.
The examiner further notes pg. 31 lines 10-15 relating to the derivation of symmetric TMVP candidates from a regular TVMP candidate. Again the specification indicates that the RTMVP candidate is used ‘as a default TMVP candidate’, not that it replaces a default TMVP candidate already on the candidate list. Here again, the specification seems to support adding the symmetric TMVP candidate ‘in replacement of’ a default candidate rather than ‘replacing’ a default TMVP.
For the purposes of examination the claims will be interpreted as adding the derived symmetric TMVP to the candidate list ‘in replacement of’ a default TMVP which is supported by the applicants specification.
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, 3-5, 13-14, 28-31 and 36-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (2021/0368187) in view of Jeong (2020/0252617) and in further view of Chen et al (20140086325).
In regard to claim 1 Zhang discloses a method for decoding, the method comprising:
obtaining an ordered list of a plurality of positions in a spatial neighborhood of a current block in a picture (Zhang pars 71-98 note construction of a merge candidate list which includes a plurality of positions in a spatial neighborhood of a current block as described in Fig. 2 and pars 83-84);
using at least one position of the ordered list of the plurality of positions to extract a first motion information (Zhang pars 90-91 note extracting first information of an initial candidate from a first reference picture list to generate a combined bi-predictive candidate);
deriving a motion vector predictor from the first information and second motion vector information (Zhang Fig. 7 and pars 90-91 note generating an additional, bi-predictive candidate, using first and second motion information form the candidate list)
inserting the derived motion vector predictor in a list of motion vector predictor candidates in replacement of default candidates used for the current block (Zhang Fig. 7 and pars. 91-92, note inserting the combined bi-predictive candidate into the merge candidate list then filling any remaining vacant entries with ‘default’ zero motion candidates after inserting bi-predictive candidates).
Zhang discloses generating additional motion vectors to be added to a merge candidate list in replacement of default zero motion candidates (Zhang pars 90-98). It is noted that Zhang does not disclose details of a symmetric motion vector predictor. However, Jeong discloses a method of deriving a symmetric motion vector predictor from first motion information, the symmetric motion vector predictor having a first motion vector pointing to a first reference picture (Jeong pars 377-380 note determining a base motion vector in a list 0 or list 1 direction pointing to a first reference picture) and a second motion vector pointing to a second reference picture (Jeong pars 379-380 note determining a second reference picture in an opposite direction from the first, further note determining a second motion vector pointing at the second reference picture by reversing the sign of the base motion vector), the first reference picture and the second reference picture being symmetric with respect to the picture comprising the current block (Jeong par. 380 note the second reference picture is on the opposite side and at the same distance to the current frame as the first reference picture and is thus symmetric), a sum of the first and second motion vectors being null (Jeong par. 380 note the second motion vector is generated by reversing the sign of the base motion vector hence adding the second motion vector to the base motion vector will give a null value).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of including the symmetric motion vector predictor of Jeong as an additional merge candidate in the merge candidate list of Zhang in order to generate a bi-directional vector candidate from a single uni-directional vector as suggested by Jeong (Jeong pars 377-380).
As noted above, Zhang and Jeong discloses adding additional merge candidates, including a symmetric merge candidate to a merge candidate list ‘in place of’ default zero motion candidates when a number of candidates in a merge candidate list is less than a maximum number (Zhang pars 90-92).
However assuming, arguendo, that the claims could be interpreted to support ‘replacing’ a default candidate in the candidate list, Zhang further discloses pruning operations (Zhang pars 132-146). It is noted that neither Zhang or Jeong disclose details of replacing temporal motion vector predictors. However, Chen discloses constructing a merge candidate list including one or more temporal motion vector predictors (TMVP) which may be added to the list, then removed from the list by pruning (Chen par 326 note first and second TMVP added to a motion candidate list, also note pars 327-328 TMVPs may be pruned). Chen further discloses using predefined TVMP candidates to replace missing TMVP candidates with additional candidates to (Chen par. 324).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of including a pruning operation as taught by Chen to remove duplicate candidates such as repeated zero motion candidates of Zhang a Jeong, and replace the missing TMVP candidate with additional motion candidates such as additional symmetric motion vector of Zhang and Jeong, in order to avoid using duplicate candidates in the motion candidate list as suggested by Chen (Chen par. 328).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Zhang further discloses that the ordered list of a plurality of positions comprises at least two positions among:
a first position (A0) at a bottom left corner of the current block (Zhang Fig. 2 and par. 84 note block A0);
a second position (A1) at the bottom left corner of the current block above the first position (Zhang Fig. 2 and par. 84 note block A1);
a third position (B0) at an upper right corner of the current block (Zhang Fig. 2 and par. 84 note block B0);
a fourth position (B1) at an upper right corner of the current block on the left of the fourth position (Zhang Fig. 2 and par. 84 note block B1);
a fifth position (B2) at an upper left corner of the current block (Zhang Fig. 2 and par. 84 note block B2); an
a sixth position (H) at a bottom right corner of the current block (Zhang Fig. 6 and pars. 87-89 note co-located temporal candidate C0 located at a bottom right of the current block);
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 2 above. Zhang further discloses that the second position is before the fourth position in the ordered list of a plurality of positions (Zhang Fig. 2 and pars 83-84 note neighboring blocks are derived in the order of A1->B1->B0->A0->B2, hence the second position A1 is before the fourth position B1).
In regard to claim 5 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Zhang in view of Jeong further discloses that the second motion information is used to obtain one motion vector predictor candidate to be inserted in one list of motion vector predictor candidates for predicting a motion vector of the current block for a merge mode or for an advanced motion vector prediction mode (Jeong pars 377-380 not determining second motion information as part of generating a bi-predicted motion vector; Zhang pars 71-80 note predicting a merge mode candidate using a merge candidate list, further note pars 78-80 and 90-98 additional merge candidates inserted into the merge candidate list).
Claims 13-14, 28-31 and 36-43 describe coding and decoding apparatus, a coding method, and a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for executing steps that correspond to the method described in the rejection of claims 1 and 3-6 above. refer to the statements made in regard to claims 1 and 3-6 above for the rejection of claims 13-14, 28-31 and 36-43 which will not be repeated here for brevity. Zhang and Jeong further discloses coding and decoding apparatus (Zhang Figs. 24-25 and pars. 4 and 325; Jeong Fig. 20 and pars 477-478).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights