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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
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)(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.
(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, 5, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Kondo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0059657 A1).
As per claim 1, Kondo teaches a method of video processing (abstract), comprising: generating during a conversion between a target block of a video and bitstream of the video (fig. 2) and an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP)-MERGE candidate for the target block ([0165], “for example, a list of indices indicative of peripheral regions used for derivation of a predicted motion vector in the AMVP Merge mode is generated as the candidate list”); applying the AMVP-MERGE candidate to a coding mode associated with the target block (fig. 1. fig. 10, fig. 11, [0246], [0265], [0274], [0388-0389]).
As per claim 5, Kondo teaches wherein the AMVP-MERGE candidate is inserted into another candidate list (fig. 7 and [0165]).
As per claim 17, Kondo teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (fig. 2, fig. 10).
As per claim 18, which is the corresponding apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions with the limitations of the metho of video processing as recited in claim 1. Thus, the rejection and analysis for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 19, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable medium storage medium storing instructions with the limitations of the method of video processing as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 20, which is the corresponding method for storing a bitstream of a video with the limitation of the method of video processing as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0007885 A1) in view of Huang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0374528 A1).
As per claim 2, Kondo does not explicitly disclose wherein the coding mode comprises at least one of: a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) mode, a variant of CIIP mode, a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) mode, a variant of MMVD mode, a multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP) mode, a variant of MHP mode, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) mode, or a variant of GPM mode.
However, Huang teaches coding mode comprises at least one of: a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) mode, a variant of CIIP mode, a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) mode, a variant of MMVD mode, a multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP) mode, a variant of MHP mode, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) mode, or a variant of GPM mode ([0030], [0069], [0086-0087], [0100]; the new merge modes include: Merge Mode with Motion Vector Difference (MMVD )(also referred to herein as the MMVD merge mode).. and Combined Inter and Intra Prediction (CIIP)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang with Kondo in order to improve video coding technology.
As per claim 4, Kondo teaches wherein the AMVP-MERGE candidate is refined by a decoder side motion vector refinement process, and the refined AMVP-MERGE candidate is used for a second coding mode, and/or wherein the decoder side motion vector refinement process comprises at least one of a TM based motion vector refinement process or a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) based motion vector refinement process, and/or wherein second coding mode comprises at least one of: a CIIP mode, a variant of CIIP mode, a MMVD mode, a variant of MMVD mode, a MHP mode, a variant of MHP mode, a GPM mode, or a variant of GPM mode.
However, Huang teaches the AMVP-MERGE candidate is refined by a decoder side motion vector refinement process, and the refined AMVP-MERGE candidate is used for a second coding mode, and/or wherein the decoder side motion vector refinement process comprises at least one of a TM based motion vector refinement process or a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) based motion vector refinement process, and/or wherein second coding mode comprises at least one of: a CIIP mode, a variant of CIIP mode, a MMVD mode, a variant of MMVD mode, a MHP mode, a variant of MHP mode, a GPM mode, or a variant of GPM mode ([0030], [0100], [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Huang with Kondo in order to improve video coding technology.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0007885) in view of Huang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0374528 A1) and further in view of Li et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0236383 A1).
As per claim 3, Kondo (modified by Huang) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Kondo does not explicitly disclose wherein the variant of MHP comprises at least one of: a MHP base hypothesis, or a MHP additional hypothesis, or wherein the variant of CIIP mode comprises at least one of: a regular CIIP, a CIIP-position dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC), or a CIIP-template matching (TM ), or wherein the variant of MMVD mode comprise at least one of: a regular MMVD or an affine MMVD, or wherein the variant of GPM mode comprises at least one of: a regular GPM, a GPM-TM, or a GPM-MMVD, or a GPM-Inter-Intra.
However, Li discloses wherein the variant of MHP comprises at least one of: a MHP base hypothesis, or a MHP additional hypothesis, or wherein the variant of CIIP mode comprises at least one of: a regular CIIP, a CIIP-position dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC), or a CIIP-template matching (TM ), or wherein the variant of MMVD mode comprise at least one of: a regular MMVD or an affine MMVD, or wherein the variant of GPM mode comprises at least one of: a regular GPM, a GPM-TM, or a GPM-MMVD, or a GPM-Inter-Intra ([0137], [0154] and [0156]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Li with Kondo (modified by Huang) for the benefit to improve coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo et al., (2020/0007885 A1) and in view of Zhang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0167001 A1).
As per claim 8, Kondo does not explicitly disclose wherein the AMVP-MERGE candidate is reordered based on a decoder derived method, and a first number of reordered AMVP-MERGE candidates is selected to be added to a second candidate list, and/or wherein the decoder derived method comprises at least one of: a TM based cost evaluation, or a DMVR based cost evaluation, and/or wherein the second candidate list comprises at least one of: a regular merge candidate list, or a regular TM merge candidate list.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the AMVP-MERGE candidate is reordered based on a decoder derived method, and a first number of reordered AMVP-MERGE candidates is selected to be added to a second candidate list, and/or wherein the decoder derived method comprises at least one of: a TM based cost evaluation, or a DMVR based cost evaluation ([0128], [0133]), and/or wherein the second candidate list comprises at least one of: a regular merge candidate list, or a regular TM merge candidate list.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with Kondo in order to improve decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process performed by video decoder and improve video quality.
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)(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.
(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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0039400 A1).
As per claim 1, Kim teaches a method of video processing, comprising: generating, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video (at least fig. 1), an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP)-MERGE candidate for the target block ([0110]; “bidirectional motion information for the current block may be derived by mixing AMVP and Merge modes. For example, motion information in the L0 direction may be derived using the AMVP method, and motion information in the L1 direction may derived using the Merge method”); applying the AMVP-MERGE candidate to a coding mode associated with the target block ([0110]) and performing the conversion based on the coding mode (fig. 1).
As per claim 2, Kim teaches wherein the coding mode comprising a least one of: a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) mode ([0005], [0120]); a variant of CIIP mode, a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) mode ([0113]); a variant of MMD mode, a multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP) mode ([0123]), a variant of MHP mode, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) mode ([0015], [0085]), a variant of GPM mode.
As per claim 3, Kim teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. In addition, Kim teaches wherein the variant of MHP mode comprises at least one of: a MHP base hypothesis, or a MHP additional hypothesis, or wherein the variant of CIIP mode comprises at least one of: a regular CIIP ([0120]), , a CIIP-position dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC), or a CIIP-template matching (TM), or wherein the variant of MMVD mode comprises at least one of : a regular MMVD ([0177]), or an affine MMVD ([0177]), or wherein the variant of GPM mode comprises at least one of: a regular GPM ([0086], [0177]), a GPM-TM, a GPM-MMVD, or a GPM-Inter-Intra.
As per claim 4, Kim teaches everything a claimed above, see claim 1. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the AMVP-MERGE candidate is refined by a decoder side motion vector refinement process, and the refined AMVP-MERGE candidate is used for a second coding mode, and/or wherein the decoder side motion vector refinement process comprises at least one of: a TM based motion vector refinement processor or a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) based motion vector refinement processor ([0115]), and/or wherein the second coding mode comprises at least one of: a CIIP mode, a variant of CIIP mode ([0120]), a MMVD mode ([0113], [0177]), a variant MMVD mode, a MHP mode ([0123], [0193]), a variant of MHP mode, a GPM mode ([0086]), or a variant of GPM mode.
As per claim 16, Kim teaches wherein a merge part of AMVP-MERGE mode is refined by a decoder side motion vector refinement process before generating the AMVP-MERGE candidate, or wherein an AMVP part of AMVP-MERGE mode is refined by a decoder side motion vector refinement process before generating the AMVP-MERGE candidate, and/or wherein the decoder side motion vector refinement process comprises at least one of: a TM or DMVR ([0115]).
As per claim 17, Kim teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (fig. 1-2).
As per claim 18, which is the corresponding apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and non-transitory memory with instructions with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 19, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions with instructions with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 20, which is the corresponding method for storing a bitstream with instructions with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2025/0039400 A1) in view of Zhang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0167001 A1).
As per claim 8, Kim teaches wherein the AMVP-MERGE candidate is reordered based on a decoder derived method, and a first number of reordered AMVP-MERGE candidates is selected to be added to a second candidate list, and/or wherein the decoder derived method comprises at least one of: a TM based cost evaluation or a DMVR based cost evaluation, and/or wherein the second candidate list comprises at least one of: a regular merge candidate list, or a regular TM merge candidate list.
However, Zhang teaches wherein the AMVP-MERGE candidate is reordered based on a decoder derived method, and a first number of reordered AMVP-MERGE candidates is selected to be added to a second candidate list, and/or wherein the decoder derived method comprises at least one of: a TM based cost evaluation or a DMVR based cost evaluation ([0128], [0133]), and/or wherein the second candidate list comprises at least one of: a regular merge candidate list, or a regular TM merge candidate list.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Zhang with Kim in order to improve decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process and improve image quality.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., (U.S. Pub. No2025/0039400 A1) and further in view of Kondo et al. (U.S. Pub. No.2020/0059657 A1).
As per claim 5, Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the AMVP-MERGE candidate is inserted to another candidate list. However, Kondo teaches where the AMVP-MERGE candidate is inserted to another candidate list (fig. 7 and [0165]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kondo with Kim for the benefit of providing increased coding efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 9-15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jang et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0124308 A1), “Method and Apparatus For Processing Video Data”
Kondo et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0007885 A1), “Imagine Processing Apparatus and Method”)
Lee et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0227212 A1), “Image Signal Encoding/Decoding Method and Apparatus Thereon”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486