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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 14th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on May 14, 2026.
Claims 1, 4-9, 13 & 15-26 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 2-3, 10-12 & 14 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 13, 19-26 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 05/14/2026, pages 9-11, regarding the rejection of claim 19 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The claim is still directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream, which is a product by process claim, and is anticipated by Segall. Therefore the rejection of claim 19 is maintained under 35 USC 102(a)(1).
Applicant's remarks filed 05/14/2026, pages 11-13, regarding the rejection of claims 1, 13 & 19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, and are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Segall (US 2017/0318312 A1) (hereinafter Segall) in view of Zhang et al., “CE4-related: History-based Motion Vector Prediction,” JVET of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11th Meeting, 10-18 July 2018, JVET-K0104 (hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0310961 A1) (hereinafter Liu) as outlined below.
In response to Applicant’s remark that Examiner’s previously-cited references do not show the Applicant’s newly-recited claim limitations, the Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the rejection of claim 1, 13 & 19 below, wherein Applicant’s newly-recited limitations are addressed by Liu for the reasons as outlined below.
Applicant’s remarks filed 05/14/2025, page 13, with respect to the rejection of claims 4-9 & 15-18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the patentability of the claims from which these claims depend to traverse the rejection without prejudice to any further basis for patentability of these claims based on the additional elements recited.
Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant because the combination of Segall, Zhang, and Liu teach independent claims 1, 13 & 19 as outlined below. Thus, claims 4-9 & 15-18 are also rejected for the similar reasons as outlined below.
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 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) 19 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Segall (US 2017/0318312 A1) (hereinafter Segall).
Regarding claim 19, “non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream,” that is utilized by the method of claim 1… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated.” MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a claimed bitstream in claim 19 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Segall which recites in Paragraph [0012]-[0017] of a memory buffer as the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream, wherein bitstream 100 includes motion vector competition control parameter, as information about prediction of the current block.
Dependent claim 22 falls accordingly.
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, 4-9, 13 & 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Segall (US 2017/0318312 A1) (hereinafter Segall) in view of Zhang et al., “CE4-related: History-based Motion Vector Prediction,” JVET of ITU-T SG16 WP3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11th Meeting, 10-18 July 2018, JVET-K0104 (hereinafter Zhang), and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2017/0310961 A1) (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 1, Segall discloses a method of decoding an image [Abstract, method for decoding video], the method comprising:
updating a first candidate list for a current block to include previously reconstructed motion information; and deriving a second candidate list for the current block using the first candidate list [Paragraph [0014], Two lists of motion vectors are merged to create single list as second candidate list, wherein one list of motion vectors from previous blocks in a previously transmitted frame as the first candidate list].
However, Segall does not explicitly disclose the first candidate list for a current block to include previously reconstructed motion information.
Zhang teaches the first candidate list for a current block to include previously reconstructed motion information; wherein the previously reconstructed motion information is motion information of a first block decoded before decoding of the current block [Pgs. 2-3, Figs. 2-3, decoded history-based MVP, as previously reconstructed motion information, are re-inserted into motion table].
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 Segall to incorporate and implement the history-based motion vector prediction features in Zhang, to improve the coding efficiency of MVP while there is no line buffer increased, and keeping the computational complexity very low (Zhang, 4 Conclusions).
However, neither Segall nor Zhang teach or suggest wherein the previously reconstructed motion information is motion information of a first block decoded before decoding of the current block, the first candidate list is shared with a plurality of third blocks in a region comprising the current block, the number of rows of the plurality of third blocks in the region is greater than or equal to 2, and the number of columns of the plurality of third blocks in the region is greater than or equal to 2.
Liu teaches or suggests wherein the previously reconstructed motion information is motion information of a first block decoded before decoding of the current block, the first candidate list is shared with a plurality of third blocks in a region comprising the current block, the number of rows of the plurality of third blocks in the region is greater than or equal to 2, and the number of columns of the plurality of third blocks in the region is greater than or equal to 2 [Paragraphs [0021], Fig. 3B, FIG. 3B illustrates another example of BVP pointing to an invalid block. In FIG. 3B, the block vector predictor 332 points from previous processed block 334 shown as a solid rectangle to reference block 336 shown as a dashed rectangle. If the current block vector 342 uses block vector 332 as a predictor, the current block 344 shown as a solid rectangle would point to reference area 346 shown as a dashed rectangle. As shown in FIG. 3B, half of the reference block 346 is in the area that is not processed yet, as a part of the second region comprising third blocks including current block].
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 Segall to incorporate and implement the block vector predictor in Liu, to develop techniques to resolve issues associated with adaptive motion vector resolution when blocks in a slice are coded in the IntraBC mode and inter prediction mode and improve coding efficiency (Liu, Paragraph [0004] & [0043]-[0044]).
Regarding claim 4, Segall, Zhang, and Liu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches of further comprising: initializing the second candidate list, wherein the first candidate list is initialized based on a boundary of a coding tree unit (CTU) row [Pgs. 2, Fig. 2, Initializing the first candidate list by emptying the candidate list when a new slice is encountered, wherein a new slice includes a boundary with a CTU row].
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 Segall to incorporate and implement the history-based motion vector prediction features in Zhang, to improve the coding efficiency of MVP while there is no line buffer increased, and keeping the computational complexity very low (Zhang, 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim 5, Segall, Zhang, and Liu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches of further comprising: when the number of pieces of motion information included in the first candidate list is a predetermined value, deleting motion information included in the first candidate list first among the pieces of motion information included in the first candidate list [Pgs. 1-3, Fig. 2-3, Predetermined number of pieces of motion information included in second candidate list is ‘L’ or 16; by First-In First-Out, an entry of motion information is removed before a new motion information is added].
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 Segall to incorporate and implement the history-based motion vector prediction features in Zhang, to improve the coding efficiency of MVP while there is no line buffer increased, and keeping the computational complexity very low (Zhang, 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim 6, Segall, Zhang, and Liu disclose the method of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein the previously reconstructed motion information is added in a next order of motion information included in the first candidate list last [Pgs. 1-3, Fig. 2-3, By First-In First-Out, an entry of motion information is removed before a new motion information is added at the last entry position].
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 Segall to incorporate and implement the history-based motion vector prediction features in Zhang, to improve the coding efficiency of MVP while there is no line buffer increased, and keeping the computational complexity very low (Zhang, 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim 7, Segall, Zhang, and Liu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches of further comprising: when same motion information as the previously reconstructed motion information is already included in the first candidate list, deleting the same motion information from the first candidate list [Pgs. 1-3, Fig. 2-3, Constrained First-In First-Out rule applied, where redundancy check is applied to find identical HMVPs, and if found, are removed].
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 Segall to incorporate and implement the history-based motion vector prediction features in Zhang, to improve the coding efficiency of MVP while there is no line buffer increased, and keeping the computational complexity very low (Zhang, 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim 8, Segall, Zhang, and Liu disclose the method of claim 7, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein the previously reconstructed motion information is added in a next order of motion information included in the first candidate list last [Pgs. 1-3, Fig. 2-3, By First-In First-Out, an entry of motion information is removed before a new motion information is added at the last entry position].
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 Segall to incorporate and implement the history-based motion vector prediction features in Zhang, to improve the coding efficiency of MVP while there is no line buffer increased, and keeping the computational complexity very low (Zhang, 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim 9, Segall, Zhang, and Liu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein a maximum number of pieces of motion information capable of being included in the first candidate list is predetermined [Pgs. 1-3, Fig. 2-3, Predetermined number of pieces of motion information included in second candidate list is set as ‘L’ or 16; and thus maximum number of being included is set as ‘L’ or 16].
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 Segall to incorporate and implement the history-based motion vector prediction features in Zhang, to improve the coding efficiency of MVP while there is no line buffer increased, and keeping the computational complexity very low (Zhang, 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claims (13, 15-18), claims (13, 15-18) are drawn to a method of encoding an image, having limitations reciprocal to the method of decoding the same as claimed in claims (1, 4-5, 7, and 9) treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claims (13, 15-18) corresponds to method claims (1, 4-5, 7, and 9) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Segall discloses of a method of encoding [Paragraph [0011], Encoder for encoding motion vectors and video data].
Regarding claim (19 & 22), non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim (19 & 22) corresponds to method claim (1 & 20), and therefore are also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Furthermore, Segall discloses of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a processor performing a method to generate the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium has a structure configured to provide an index information as a part of the bitstream [Paragraph [0012]-[0017], memory buffer as non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing bitstream, and motion estimation for the current image uses a motion vector coding process that generally includes receiving a motion vector prediction control parameter in the bit stream 100. The motion vector prediction control parameter may be an index value used to select from among a group of available motion vectors]
Regarding claim 20, Segall, Zhang, and Liu disclose the method of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Zhang teaches wherein the first candidate list is updated to comprise motion information of at least one of the plurality of third blocks only after predictions for all of the plurality of third blocks in the second region are completed [Pgs. 2, Fig. 2, Initializing the first candidate list by emptying the candidate list when a new slice is encountered, wherein a new slice includes a boundary with a CTU row].
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 Segall to incorporate and implement the history-based motion vector prediction features in Zhang, to improve the coding efficiency of MVP while there is no line buffer increased, and keeping the computational complexity very low (Zhang, 4 Conclusions).
Regarding claim (23-24), non-transitory computer-readable recording medium claim (23-24) corresponds to method claim (1 & 20), and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Regarding claims (25-26), method claim (25-26) recites similar and reciprocal limitations similar to method claims (1 & 20) of the same. Therefore method claim (25-26) corresponds to method claims (1 & 20) and are also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights