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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites legal phraseology, specifically, “[a] method and apparatus for video coding are disclosed […]” in the abstract recites legal phraseology. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 9 & 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2021/0006788 A1) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Chang et al. (US 2023/0103767 A1) (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method of video decoding [Paragraph [0712], decoding methods], the method comprising:
receiving encoded data associated with a current block [Paragraph [0706]-[0712], decoder receiving bitstream];
determining a pseudo GPM in a target GPM group for the current block [Paragraph [0682]-[0687], determining geometry partition mode];
dividing the current block into one or more subblocks [Paragraph [0683], partitioning current block into multiple partitions];
determining assigned MVs (Motion Vectors) of each subblock according to the pseudo GPM [Paragraph [0684], performing, as part of a conversion between the current block and a bitstream representation of the video, a motion compensation process for a first sub-region of the current block based on a first motion information that is different from a second motion information associated with the first sub-region which is to be stored];
determining a cost for each GPM in the target GPM group according to decoded data [Paragraph [0272], The template matching operation consists of calculating cost measures between the generated template and the sample region (around the initial prediction block) in the reference picture. For each of the two reference pictures, the MV that yields the minimum template cost is considered as the updated MV of that list to replace the original one];
decoding the encoded data using information comprising the selected GPM [Paragraph [0685]-[0687], storing, based on a splitting direction or decoded merge indices or merge candidate lists associated with the multiple partitions, using partitioning mode].
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose determining a selected GPM based on a mode syntax and a reordered target GPM group corresponding to the target GPM group reordered according to the cost, wherein the pseudo GPM is allowed to be different from the selected GPM.
Chang teaches of determining a selected GPM based on a mode syntax and a reordered target GPM group corresponding to the target GPM group reordered according to the cost, wherein the pseudo GPM is allowed to be different from the selected GPM [Paragraph [0109]-[0112], n the second ARMC stage, the encoding device 104 and/or the decoding device 112 can use a second grouping method for grouping the candidates (e.g., from first merge candidate list). The encoding device 104 and/or the decoding device 112 can apply reordering within each group (e.g., reordering individually within each group) of the candidates generated by the second grouping method].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Cho to add the teachings of He as above, for improved video processing, such as video encoding and/or decoding. For example, a system can perform motion vector (MV) candidate reordering (e.g., for merge modes), such as using multiple-stage (e.g., two-stage) adaptive reordering of merge candidates (ARMC) technique (Chang, Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang and Chang disclose the method of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses of the method further comprises parsing the mode syntax from a bitstream comprising the encoded data for the current block [Paragraph [0176]-[0182], signaling of Triangular Prediction Mode flag, indexes parsed from bitstream described in paragraph [0696]-[0697]].
Regarding claim 9, Zhang and Chang disclose the method of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein the mode syntax is parsed from a bitstream comprising the encoded data for the current block [Paragraph [0176]-[0182], signaling of Triangular Prediction Mode flag, indexes parsed from bitstream described in paragraph [0696]-[0697]].
Regarding claim 11-12, method claim 11-12 recites limitations similar and reciprocal to the method of decoding as claimed in claim 1-2. Therefore method claim 11-12 corresponds to method claim 1-2, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 13-14, method claim 13-14 recites limitations similar to the method of decoding as claimed in claim 1-2. Therefore method claim 13-14 corresponds to method claim 1-2, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 & 10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487