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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because they relate to newly amended claim limitations for which new art Zhang is provided.
In particular regard to the arguments, the examiner notes the arguments in the final paragraph of pg. 6 of the Remarks filed 2/13/2026 relating to scaling the second motion vector when performing the bilateral matching based correction method. The examiner notes that the claim requires multiplying the second motion vector by the scaling factor when the current block is corrected using bilateral matching. However, the claims do not necessarily require that the scaling is performed as a result of the correction, nor do they limit the scaling to only be performed as a result of the bilateral correction of the motion vector.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 relates to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream a generated by a particular encoding method. Since the claims relate to a bitstream which is stored on a computer readable medium after all coding functions have been performed the bitstream no longer has any functional relationship with a processor or other machine, but instead relates to e.g. a video stored on a hard drive. The purpose of the stored bitstream is only to convey meaning to a human viewer of the coded bitstream and is thus non-functional descriptive material. Non-functional descriptive material used only to convey messages or meaning is given little patentable weight (See MPEP 2111.05). For the purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the claim as relating only to a computer readable medium storing data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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) 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Liu et al (2021/0235110) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Liu in view of Zhang (2022/0201313).
In regard to claim 1 Liu discloses an image decoding method, comprising:
deriving a motion vector of a current block based on a merge inter mode, wherein the motion vector of the current block includes a first motion vector in a first direction and a second motion vector in a second direction, the first motion vector is derived based on a first inter prediction mode and the second motion vector is derived based on a second inter prediction mode (Liu pars 248-256 for Multi-Hypothesis prediction, particularly note par 255 note performing bi-prediction wherein a first motion in a first direction is derived based on an AMVP inter prediction mode and a second motion in a second direction is derived based on a merge inter mode);
correcting the motion vector of the current block based on any one of a bilateral matching-based correction method or a template matching-based correction method (Liu Figs 26-27 and pars 201-204 note correcting the motion vectors using pattern matched motion vector derivation based on either bilateral or template matching, further note Fig. 34 and pars 296-298 decoder side motion vector refinement correcting motion vectors using bi-lateral template matching); and
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the corrected motion vector (Liu par. 254 note generating inter prediction blocks for inter prediction modes).
It is noted that claim 1 requires correcting a motion vector using any one of a bilateral matching based correction or a template matching-based correction method. Liu discloses correcting using a template-based correction method as noted above, thus the claim limitations relating exclusively to a bilateral matching-based correction method are contingent limitations whose conditions precedent are not met, and are therefore not limitations required by claim 1. See MPEP 2111.04(II).
However, even assuming arguendo, that the conditions precedent for bilateral matching based correction were met, the limitations would still be rejected based on the combination of Liu and Zhang. Liu further discloses correcting the motion vectors of a current block on using a bilateral matching-based correction method (Liu pars 201-204), and predicting a current block using a first motion vector derived according to an AMVP mode and a second motion vector derived according to a merge mode (Liu pars 248-256). It is noted that Liu does not disclose details of scaling the second motion vector. However Zhang discloses that both AMVP and merge mode motion vectors may be derived using a scaling factor based on a first distance between a current picture and a first reference picture in a first direction and a second distance between the current picture and the second reference picture in a second direction (Zhang pars 160-161 note motion vectors in both merge and AMVP modes are derived by motion vector scaling, the scaling based on POC distances between a current picture and each reference picture).
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 motion vector scaling as taught by Zhang in the AMVP and merge mode motion vector derivation of Liu in order to improve motion vector prediction as suggested by Zhang (Zhang pars 160-161).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Liu further discloses that correcting the motion vector of the current block is performed adaptively based on whether a correction of a motion vector is allowed for an image unit to which the current block belongs (Liu pars 202-203 adaptively using either bilateral or template matching according to a flag indicating the allowed matching, the flag being determined based on a comparison of RD costs).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Liu further discloses that the bilateral matching-based correction method is used adaptively based on whether the bilateral matching-based correction method is available for the current block (Liu pars 202-203 note bilateral matching is used for correcting the motion vector when allowed by the FRUC mode flag).
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Liu further discloses that the template matching-based correction method is used adaptively based on whether the template matching-based correction method is available for the current block (Liu pars 202-203 note template matching is used for correcting the motion vector when allowed by the FRUC mode flag).
In regard to claim 5 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 4 above. Liu further discloses that when the template matching-based correction method is not available for the current block, the motion vector of the current block is corrected based on the bilateral matching-based correction method (Liu pars 202-203 note bilateral matching is used for correcting the motion vector when it is indicated by the FRUC mode flag, note that when bilateral matching is selected the template matching mode is not available).
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 3 above. Liu further discloses that when the bilateral matching-based correction method is not available for the current block, the motion vector of the current block is corrected based on the template matching-based correction method (Liu pars 202-203 note bilateral matching is used for correcting the motion vector when it is indicated by the FRUC mode flag, note that when bilateral matching is selected the template matching mode is not available).
In regard to claim 9 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Liu further discloses that wherein the first inter prediction mode is an AMVP mode, and the second inter prediction mode is a merge mode (Liu par 255 note a first inter predictor is an AMVP mode predictor and a second predictor is a merge mode predictor).
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 9 above. Liu further discloses that the prediction block of the current block includes a first prediction block in the first direction and a second prediction block in the second direction (Liu par. 255 note predicting a block using bi-prediction),
wherein the first prediction block is generated based on the corrected first motion vector and a motion vector difference signaled through a bitstream (Liu par. 255 note first motion acquired using AVMP, further note par. 66 AMVP mode includes a motion vector difference), and
wherein the second prediction block is generated based on the corrected second motion vector (Liu par. 255 note second motion acquired using merge mode, further note par. 66 in merge mode motion parameters are obtained from a neighboring block).
Claims 11 relates to an encoding method substantially corresponds to the decoding method recited in claim 1. Refer to the statements made in regard to claim 1 above for the rejection of claim 11 which will not be repeated here for brevity.
In regard to claim 12 Liu further discloses encoding and a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Liu par. 415 note output bitstream may be stored in a storage media further note par 651 various storage media including ROMs and flash memory).
Conclusion
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