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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (“AHG12: Non-adjacent spatial neighbors for affine merge mode”, JVET-X0151-v2, 6-15 October 2021), hereinafter Chen1 in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2018/0359483), hereinafter Chen2 and further in view of Zhao et al. (“CE2: History Based Affine Motion Candidate (Test 2.2.3)”, JVET-M0125, 9-18 Jan. 2019), hereinafter Zhao. Chen1 and Zhao were cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 6/14/24.
Regarding claim 1, Chen1 discloses a method of video processing, comprising:
determining, during encoding and decoding, a set of non-adjacent affine candidates, wherein the number of non-adjacent affine candidates in the set is not larger than a first threshold number (Chen1 pgs. 1-2, section 2 and figs. 1-2), and a motion candidate list that comprises at least one non-adjacent affine candidate (Chen1 pgs. 1-2, section 2); and
performing the encoding and decoding based on the set of non-adjacent affine candidates (Chen1 p. 1, section 1 and section 2).
Chen1 does not explicitly disclose that encoding and decoding involves a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video.
However, Chen2 teaches that encoding and decoding involves a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video (Chen2 Abstract and fig. 24) and selecting N non-adjacent blocks (Chen2 [0188], i.e. not larger than a first threshold number).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen1’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Chen2 to transmit, receive, encode, decode and/or store video information more efficiently (Chen2 [0003]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Chen1 does not explicitly disclose wherein a motion candidate list that comprises at least one history-based affine candidate is determined.
However, Zhao teaches wherein a motion candidate list that comprises at least one non-adjacent affine candidate and at least one history-based affine candidate is determined (Zhao p. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Chen1 in view of Chen2 with the missing limitations as taught by Zhao to improve coding efficiency and flexibility as a result of using HMVP in addition to affine candidates (Zhao p. 1, Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the number of non-adjacent inheritance affine candidates in the set of non-adjacent affine candidates is not larger than a second threshold number (Chen1, pgs. 1-2, section 2), or
wherein the number of non-adjacent constructed affine candidates in the set of non-adjacent affine candidates is not larger than a third threshold number (Chen1, pgs. 1-2, section 2).
Regarding claim 3, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining the set of non-adjacent blocks associated with the target block from the video based on positions of the set of non-adjacent blocks in the video (Chen1, pgs. 1-2, section 2 and figs. 1-2); and
deriving a set of non-adjacent affine candidates based on the set of non-adjacent blocks (Chen1, pgs. 1-2, section 2 and figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the positions of the set of non-adjacent blocks are predefined (Chen1, pgs. 1-2, section 2 and figs. 1-2), or
wherein the positions of the set of non-adjacent blocks are same as positions of another set of non-adjacent blocks that are used to derive non-adjacent non-affine candidates (Chen1, pgs. 1-2, section 2 and figs. 1-2), or
wherein the positions of the set of non-adjacent blocks depend on dimensions of the target block (Chen1, pgs. 1-2, section 2 and figs. 1-2), or
wherein the positions of the set of non-adjacent blocks are constrained to a region (Chen1, pgs. 1-2, section 2 and figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the region comprises at least one of:
a current coding tree unit (CTU) (Chen2 [0199]),
a current CTU row (Chen2 [0199]),
the current CTU and at least one neighboring CTU left to the current CTU (Chen2 fig. 20),
the current CTU and at least one neighboring CTU above to the current CTU (Chen2 figs. 19A and 20), or
the current CTU, the at least one neighboring CTU left to the current CTU, and the at least one neighboring CTU above to the current CTU (Chen2 fig. 20).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion is performed based on the at least one non-adjacent affine candidate and the at least one history-based affine candidate (Chen1 pgs. 1-2, section 2 and Zhao p. 1, Abstract).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one history-based affine candidate comprises at least one of:
an affine merge candidate (Zhao p. 1, Abstract),
an affine subblock candidate (Zhao p. 2, section 1), or
an affine advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate (Zhao p. 1, Abstract), or
wherein the at least one non-adjacent affine candidate comprises at least one of:
a non-adjacent affine inheritance candidate (Chen1 p. 1, Abstract), or
a non-adjacent affine constructed candidate (Chen1 p. 1, Abstract).
The same motivation for claim 6 applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a history-based affine candidate is added into the motion candidate list before a non-adjacent affine inheritance candidate, or
wherein a history-based affine candidate is added into the motion candidate list before a non-adjacent affine constructed candidate, or
wherein a history-based affine candidate is added into the motion candidate list after a non-adjacent affine inheritance candidate, or
wherein a history-based affine candidate is added into the motion candidate list after a non-adjacent affine constructed candidate (Zhao p. 1, Abstract and p. 3, section 2.2).
The same motivation for claim 6 applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
deriving at least one affine merge candidate based on a set of parameters and at least one non-adjacent unit block (Chen1 p. 1, Abstract and Chen2 [0181]); and
determining an affine candidate list that comprises the at least one affine merge candidate (Chen1 p. 1, Abstract); and
wherein performing the conversion comprises:
performing the conversion based on the affine candidate list (Chen1 p. 1, Abstract).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the at least one affine merge candidate is a non-adjacent affine history-based motion vector prediction (HMVP) candidate, and/or
wherein the number of affine merge candidates is not larger than a threshold number (Chen1, p. 3, top), and/or
wherein a non-adjacent unit block is used to derive an affine merge candidate in a same way as deriving the affine merge candidate based on an adjacent unit block (Chen1 p.1, section 1).
Regarding claim 11, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 10, wherein a base motion vector (MV) is fetched from the non-adjacent unit block (Chen1 pgs. 1-2, section 2 and figs. 1-2), and
wherein a position of the base MV is a target position in the non-adjacent unit block (Chen1 pgs. 1-2, section 2 and figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the target position in the non-adjacent unit block is a center of the non-adjacent unit block (Chen2 [0152] and [0164]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the affine merge candidate is put before an adjacent affine HMVP candidate (Zhao p. 1, Abstract, p. 3, section 2.2 and p. 4, top), and
wherein the adjacent affine HMVP candidate is derived based on the set of parameters stored in a buffer and the at least one adjacent unit block, and/or
wherein a position of the at least one non-adjacent unit block for the at least one affine merge candidate is predefined (Chen1 p. 2, top and Chen2 [0181]).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 6 applies to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the position is same as a position of a non-adjacent block that is used to derive a non-adjacent non-affine candidate, or
wherein the position is same as a position of a non-adjacent block that is used to derive a non-adjacent affine candidate (Chen1 p. 2, figs. 1-2), or
wherein the position depends on dimensions of the target block (Chen1 p. 1, section 2), or
wherein the position is constrained to a region (Chen1 p. 2, figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 15, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the region comprises at least one of:
a current coding tree unit (CTU) (Chen2 [0199]),
a current CTU row (Chen2 [0199]),
the current CTU and at least one neighboring CTU left to the current CTU (Chen2 fig. 20),
the current CTU and at least one neighboring CTU above to the current CTU (Chen2 figs. 19A and 20), or
the current CTU, the at least one neighboring CTU left to the current CTU, and the at least one neighboring CTU above to the current CTU (Chen2 fig. 20).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream, or
wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (Chen1 p. 1 Abstract and Chen2 fig. 24).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor (Chen2 [0322]), cause the processor to: determine, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the target block, a set of non-adjacent affine candidates, wherein the number of non-adjacent affine candidates in the set is not larger than a first threshold number, and a motion candidate list that comprises at least one non-adjacent affine candidate and at least one history-based affine candidate is determined; and perform the conversion based on the set of non-adjacent affine candidates (see claim 1).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the number of non-adjacent inheritance affine candidates in the set of non-adjacent affine candidates is not larger than a second threshold number, or wherein the number of non-adjacent constructed affine candidates in the set of non-adjacent affine candidates is not larger than a third threshold number (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 19, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to (Chen2 [0322]): determine, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the target block, a set of non-adjacent affine candidates, wherein the number of non-adjacent affine candidates in the set is not larger than a first threshold number, and a motion candidate list that comprises at least one non-adjacent affine candidate and at least one history-based affine candidate is determined; and perform the conversion based on the set of non-adjacent affine candidates (see claim 1).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Chen1 in view of Chen2 and Zhao teaches a method for storing a bitstream of a video (Chen2 [0260] and [0070]), comprising: determining a set of non-adjacent affine candidates for a target block of the video, wherein the number of non-adjacent affine candidates in the set is not larger than a first threshold number, and a motion candidate list that comprises at least one non-adjacent affine candidate and at least one history-based affine candidate is determined; generating a bitstream of the target block based on the set of non-adjacent affine candidates; and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Chen2 [0260] and [0070], further see claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/26 in regards to the previously presented portions of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pgs. 7-8 of the Applicant’s Response, the Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach the amended limitations as Zhao does not teach a motion candidate list.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the current claim language “a motion candidate list”, Chen1 teaches a motion candidate list that comprises at least one non-adjacent affine candidate (Chen1 pgs. 1-2, section 2) and Zhao teaches a motion candidate list that comprises at least one non-adjacent affine candidate and at least one history-based affine candidate (Zhao p. 4 and p. 1, Abstract, HMVP candidates are added to “a motion candidate list”). Therefore, the combination of Chen1 and Zhao teaches the amended limitations of the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yu et al. (“CE 4-2.1: Adding non-adjacent spatial merge candidates”, JVET-K0228-v1, 10-18, July 2018) discloses a threshold for non-adjacent candidates (Yu p. 2, top).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights