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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The applicant's amendment received on 10/08/2025 in which claims 95-98, 100-104, and 106-114 were (AMENDED), has been fully considered and entered, but the arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 of this title, 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.
4. Claims 95-114 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karabutov et al. (“Karabutov”) (US Pub. No.: 2021/0337208 A1) in view of Hendry (“Hendry”) (US Pub. No.: 2025/0203103 A1), and further in view of Li et al. (“Li”) (US Pub. No.: 2022/0353500 A1).
In regards to claims [95], [101], [0107], and [111], Karabutov discloses a device (see fig. 2 unit 20) and method for video decoding (see paragraphs [0169] and [0171]) and a device for video encoding (see fig. 2 unit 20) comprising: a processor (see fig. 1B unit 46, paragraph [0093]) configured to: modify a motion information refinement table (see paragraph [0161], e.g., “reordering MMVD distance table”) based on at least Motion Vector Predictors (MVP) associated with a current block (see paragraph [0049] and [0249], e.g., “MVP candidate of a current block of a current picture”); and decode the current block (see fig. 2 and/or fig. 3, paragraph [0132] and [0189]).
Yet, Karabutov fails to explicitly disclose modifying a merge candidate motion vector of the current block as specified in the amended claim.
However, Hendry teaches the well-known concept of modifying a merge candidate motion vector of the current block (see paragraph [0175] and [0291]).
Therefore, it 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 could recognize the advantage of modifying the proposed teachings of Karabutov above by incorporating the proposed teachings of Hendy above to perform such a modification to provide a method and apparatus for encoding/decoding that is capable of implementing wherein modifying a merge candidate motion vector of the current block as well as to the solve the problem in a case where there is growing demand on high-resolution, high-quality images such as High Definition (HD) images and Ultra High Definition (UHD) images in various application fields as taught by Hendry (see Hendry, paragraph [0002]), thus enhancing video quality and improving video compression efficiency.
Although Karabutov discloses a device (see fig. 2 unit 20) and method for video decoding (see paragraphs [0169] and [0171]) and a device for video encoding (see fig. 2 unit 20) comprising: a processor (see fig. 1B unit 46, paragraph [0093]) configured to: modify a motion information refinement table (see paragraph [0161], e.g., “reordering MMVD distance table”) based on at least Motion Vector Predictors (MVP) associated with a current block (see paragraph [0049] and [0249], e.g., “MVP candidate of a current block of a current picture”); and decode the current block (see fig. 2 and/or fig. 3, paragraph [0132] and [0189]), the combination of teachings of Karabutov and Hendry fails to explicitly disclose such that modifying values in a motion information refinement table as specified in the amended claim.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li further teaches the well-known concept of modifying values in a motion information refinement table (see TABLE 3, TABLE 4, paragraphs [0124] and [0129], e.g., “where various modified distance and direction values can be looked up from motion information TABLE 3 and TABLE 4”).
Therefore, it 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 could recognize the advantage of modifying the proposed combination of teachings of Karabutov and Hendry above by further incorporating the proposed teachings of Li above to perform such a modification to provide a method and apparatus for encoding/decoding that is capable of implementing to modify values in a motion information refinement table as well as to the solve the problem in a case where MV prediction itself can be lossy, for example because of rounding errors when calculating a predictor from several surrounding MVs as taught by Li et al. (see Li, paragraph [0007]), thus improving video compression efficiency even more.
As per claim [96], most of the limitations have been noted in the above rejection of claim 95. In addition, Karabutov discloses the device of claim 95 (see the above rejection of claim 95), wherein the processor (see fig. 1B unit 46, paragraph [0093]) configured to modify the motion information refinement table (see paragraph [0161]) based on at least MVP associated with the current block (see paragraph [0049] and [0249]) is further configured to modify the motion information refinement table (see paragraph [0161]) based on at least MVP associated with the current block (see paragraph [0049] and [0249]) and motion information (see fig. 12 unit 1210) comprising a motion map associated with the current block (see fig. 6 and/or fig. 7, paragraph [0154] and [0177]).
Yet, the combination of teachings of Karabutov and Hendry fails to explicitly disclose such that modifying values in a motion information refinement table as specified in the amended claim.
However, Li teaches modifying values in a motion information refinement table (see TABLE 3, TABLE 4, paragraphs [0124] and [0129]). Same motivation as to claim 95 applies here.
As per claim [97], most of the limitations have been noted in the above rejection of claim 95. In addition, Karabutov the device of claim 95 (see the above rejection of claim 95), wherein the processor (see fig. 1B unit 46, paragraph [0093]) configured to modify the motion information refinement table (see paragraph [0161]) based on at least MVP associated with the current block (see paragraph [0049] and [0249]) is further configured to modify the motion information refinement table (see paragraph [0161]) based on at least MVP associated with the current block (see paragraph [0049] and [0249]) and depth information comprising a depth map associated with the current block (see paragraph [0098]).
Yet, the combination of teachings of Karabutov and Hendry fails to explicitly disclose such that modifying values in a motion information refinement table as specified in the amended claim.
However, Li teaches modifying values in a motion information refinement table (see TABLE 3, TABLE 4, paragraphs [0124] and [0129]). Same motivation as to claim 95 applies here.
As per claim [98], most of the limitations have been noted in the above rejection of claim 95. In addition, Karabutov discloses the device of claim 95 (see the above rejection of claim 95), wherein the processor (see fig. 1B unit 46, paragraph [0093]) configured to modify the motion information refinement table (see paragraph [0161]) based on at least MVP associated with the current block (see paragraph [0049] and [0249]) is further configured to modify the motion information refinement table (see paragraph [0161]) based on at least MVP associated with the current block (see paragraph [0049] and [0249]), motion information (see fig. 12 unit 1210) comprising a motion map associated with the current block (see fig. 6 and/or fig. 7, paragraph [0154] and [0177]), and depth information comprising a depth map associated with the current block (see paragraph [0098]).
Yet, the combination of teachings of Karabutov and Hendry fails to explicitly disclose such that modifying values in a motion information refinement table as specified in the amended claim.
However, Li teaches modifying values in a motion information refinement table (see TABLE 3, TABLE 4, paragraphs [0124] and [0129]). Same motivation as to claim 95 applies here.
As per claim [99], most of the limitations have been noted in the above rejection of claim 95. In addition, Karabutov discloses the device of claim 95 (see the above rejection of claim 95), wherein the motion information refinement table is one of a merged motion vector difference (MMVD) distance table or a MMVD direction table (see paragraph [0161]).
As per claim [100], most of the limitations have been noted in the above rejection of claim 95. In addition, Karabutov discloses the device of claim 95 (see the above rejection of claim 95), wherein the processor (see fig. 1B unit 46, paragraph [0093]) configured to modify the motion information refinement table (see paragraph [0161]) based on at least MVP associated with the current block (see paragraph [0049] and [0249]) is configured to re-order the motion information refinement table (see paragraph [0161]).
Yet, the combination of teachings of Karabutov and Hendry fails to explicitly disclose such that modifying values in a motion information refinement table as specified in the amended claim.
However, Li teaches modifying values in a motion information refinement table (see TABLE 3, TABLE 4, paragraphs [0124] and [0129]). Same motivation as to claim 95 applies here.
As per claim [102], the method of claim 101, is analogous to claim 96, which is performed by claim 102.
As per claim [103], the method of claim 101, is analogous to claim 97, which is performed by claim 103.
As per claim [104], the method of claim 101, is analogous to claim 98, which is performed by claim 104.
As per claim [105], the method of claim 101, is analogous to claim 99, which is performed by claim 105.
As per claim [106], the method of claim 101, is analogous to claim 100, which is performed by claim 106.
As per claim [108], the device of claim 107, is analogous to claim 96, which is performed by claim 108.
As per claim [109], the device of claim 107, is analogous to claim 97, which is performed by claim 109.
As per claim [110], the device of claim 107, is analogous to claim 98, which is performed by claim 110.
As per claim [112], the method of claim 111, is analogous to claim 102, which is performed by claim 112.
As per claim [113], the method of claim 111, is analogous to claim 103, which is performed by claim 113.
As per claim [114], the method of claim 111, is analogous to claim 104, which is performed by claim 114.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0195948 A1) discloses method and apparatus for signaling of multi-hypothesis for skip and merge mode and signaling of distance offset table in merge with motion vector difference.
Lee (US Pub. No.: 2023/0370631 A1) discloses method for encoding/decoding video signal, and apparatus.
6. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Carter whose telephone number is (571)270-1220. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/R.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
December 18, 2025
Prosecution Insights