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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, the Applicant contends, the present invention: (1) converts affine motion (multi-parameter model) -- new translational MV candidates; and (2) inserts those into a standard (non-affine) merge list. In contrast, Chen appears to use affine information within affine prediction or derive MVs still tied to affine prediction / affine merge. Thus, Applicant submits that Chen fails to disclose using affine-derived MVs as translational merge candidates in a conventional merge list.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen discloses determining one or more second parameters based on a second neighbor block from a plurality of affine coded neighbor blocks of the current block or from a plurality of historically affine coded neighbor blocks; construct an affine model using the one or more first parameters and the one or more second parameters; and project the affine model to the current block to determine a translational MV (Chen: paragraph [0010]). Affine merge candidates can be decided in three ways (Chen: paragraph [0104]). In the first way, the affine merge candidates may be inherited from neighboring affine coded blocks. In the second way, the affine merge candidates may be constructed from translational MVs from neighboring blocks. In the third way, zero MVs are used as the affine merge candidates (Chen: paragraph [0104]). Additionally, CPMVs are converted into translational MVs (Chen: paragraph [0155]).
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) 1-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20240357125 A1).
Re claim 1, Chen discloses a method of video coding, the method comprising:
receiving input data for a current block to be encoded at an encoder side or encoded data of the current block to be decoded at a decoder side (Chen: Fig. 1B and Fig. 2); and
when one or more reference blocks or sub-blocks of the current block are coded in an affine mode:
deriving one or more derived MVs (Motion Vectors) for the current block according to one or more affine models associated with said one or more reference blocks or sub-blocks (Chen: paragraph [0010], determine one or more second parameters based on a second neighbor block from a plurality of affine coded neighbor blocks of the current block or from a plurality of historically affine coded neighbor blocks; construct an affine model using the one or more first parameters and the one or more second parameters; and project the affine model to the current block to determine a translational MV; paragraph [0104], CPMVs derived from neighboring blocks; paragraph [0155], CPMVs converted into translational MVs),
wherein the one or more derived MVs comprise translational motion vectors derived from the affine models (Chen: paragraph [0010], determine one or more second parameters based on a second neighbor block from a plurality of affine coded neighbor blocks of the current block or from a plurality of historically affine coded neighbor blocks; construct an affine model using the one or more first parameters and the one or more second parameters; and project the affine model to the current block to determine a translational MV; paragraph [0104], CPMVs derived from neighboring blocks; paragraph [0155], CPMVs converted into translational MVs);
generating a merge list comprising at least one of said one or more derived MVs as one translational MV candidate (Chen: paragraph [0104], the affine merge candidates may be constructed from translational MVs from neighboring blocks; paragraphs [0006]-[0007] and [0009]-[0010], the encoder and decoder may insert the translational MV into a regular merge list, wherein translational MVs are derived from CPMVs); and
applying predictive encoding or decoding to the input data using information comprising the merge list (Chen: paragraph [0005], motion vector candidate derivation for motion prediction mode in a video encoding or decoding process; paragraphs [0006]-[0007] and [0009]-[0010], the encoder and decoder may insert the translational MV into a regular merge list).
Re claim 2, Chen discloses that said one or more derived MVs are determined at one or more locations comprising left-top corner, right-top corner, center, left-bottom corner, right-bottom corner, or a combination thereof of the current block according to said one or more affine models (Chen: Fig. 6).
Re claim 3, Chen discloses that said one or more locations comprise one or more target locations inside the current block, outside the current block or both (Chen: Fig. 5; paragraph [0155]).
Re claim 4, Chen discloses that said one or more reference blocks or sub-blocks of the current block correspond to one or more spatial neighbouring blocks or sub-blocks of the current block (Chen: Fig. 6).
Re claim 5, Chen discloses that said one or more derived MVs are inserted into the merge list as one or more new MV candidates (Chen: paragraph [0261], Once the translational MV is derived for the current block, it can be inserted to the candidate list as other candidates).
Re claim 6, Chen discloses that said at least one of said one or more derived MVs is inserted into the merge list before or after a spatial MV candidate for a corresponding reference block or sub-block associated with said at least one of said one or more derived MVs (Chen: paragraphs [0263]-[0308]).
Re claim 8, Chen discloses that said at least one of said one or more derived MVs is inserted into the merge list after a spatial MV candidate, after a temporal MV candidate or after one MV category (Chen: paragraphs [0263]-[0308]).
Re claim 9, Chen discloses that only first N derived MVs of said one or more derived MVs are inserted into the merge list, wherein N is a positive integer (Chen: paragraph [0546], in some examples, the processor 2120 may insert into a candidate list a MV candidate according the pre-determined order based on one or more numbers of MV candidates in each category, where the one or more numbers of MV candidates in each category are placed in an interleaved manner).
Re claim 10, Chen discloses that said one or more reference blocks or sub-blocks of the current block correspond to one or more non-adjacent affine coded blocks (Chen: Fig. 8; paragraph [0035]).
Re claim 11, Chen discloses that said one or more reference blocks or sub-blocks of the current block corresponds to one or more affine coded blocks with CPMVs (control-point MVs) or model parameters stored in a history buffer (Chen: paragraph [0259]).
Re claim 12, Chen discloses that only part of said one or more derived MVs associated with part of said one or more reference blocks or subblocks of the current block are inserted into the merge list (Chen: paragraph [0546], in some examples, the processor 2120 may insert into a candidate list a MV candidate according the pre-determined order based on one or more numbers of MV candidates in each category, where the one or more numbers of MV candidates in each category are placed in an interleaved manner).
Claim 13 recites the corresponding apparatus for implementing the method of claim 1. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 13. Additionally, Chen discloses a processor and associated memory storing instructions to implement the disclosed functions (Chen: paragraph [0012]-[0015]). Accordingly, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1 above.
Re claim 14, Chen discloses that the one or more derived MVs are determined at one or more locations comprising a corner or a center of the current block (Chen: paragraph [0240], In some embodiments, a virtual coding block is formed by determining three corner points A, B and C, and then the translational MVs of the 4×4 blocks located at the three corners are used to represent an affine model for the virtual coding block; paragraph [0261], for deriving translation MVs of regular inter-coded block, the center position of the block may be used as the pivot position (x, y) in equation (3)).
Re claim 15, Chen discloses that the at least one derived MV is inserted into the merge list as a new candidate in association with a corresponding reference block (Chen: paragraph [0009], the encoder may insert the translational MV into a regular merge list in response to determining that the translational MV is obtained).
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) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20240357125 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 20200374549 A1).
Re claim 7, Chen does not specifically disclose that a spatial MV candidate in the merge list for a corresponding reference block or sub-block associated with said at least one of said one or more derived MVs is replaced by said at least one of said one or more derived MVs. However, Li discloses, in some embodiments, affine inheritance from spatial neighbors can be replaced with inheritance from affine HMVP (Li: paragraph [0123]). The inherited affine merge candidates and inherited affine AMVP candidates can be derived from the left and above neighboring blocks coded in affine mode, such as in VTM3 (Li: paragraph [0123]). For example, the inherited affine merge candidates and inherited affine AMVP candidates that are derived from the left and above neighboring blocks coded in affine mode can be replaced with inherited candidates derived from the affine HMVP (Li: paragraph [0123]). Since Chen and Li relate to constructing candidate lists using affine information, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the HMVP inheritance of Li with the system of Chen in order to allow CPMVs of the affine HMVP candidates can be applied to the current CU directly regardless of a shape and a size of the history block by adding the affine HMVP candidates directly to the affine merge list (Li: paragraph [0121]).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights