DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 01/14/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending.
Claim 20 stand canceled.
The rejection to claims 6 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), is withdrawn post amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claim 21, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 21, is rejected under this paragraph for reciting; “21. (New) A method for storing a bitstream of a video, comprising: generating the bitstream based on at least one flag of: “, which is deemed as “printed matter” of a bitstream, being stored as a without reciting any limitation indicating storage processing operations which customarily are related to storage management instructions or algorithms regarding the respective method being applied to the inferred memory or “non-transitory medium”.
Respectively, the preamble at the claim reciting; “21. (New) A method for storing a bitstream of a video, comprising: generating the bitstream based on at least one flag of:“ is not given patentable weight where the bitstream storage claimed at preamble finds no limiting steps reciting specific steps of a bitstream being generated by the storage method, or as being receiving and stored according to limiting algorithms that may be connected to the instant processing being executed by a processor.
Correction or response by justifying argument is requested.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-19 and 21, have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive.
(5.1) Applicants’ Argument
The argument in chief alleges that; “In rejecting Claim 1, the Office Action refers to Jeong at paragraph [0415] as disclosing the feature "a second flag indicating whether an affine MMVD is used for the current video block", then by citing from Jeong;
Applicant respectfully disagrees. Jeong at paragraph [0415] discloses
"As another example, to represent a flag of the MMVD mode for other prediction technologies such as an MMVD mode to be applied to an affine control point, …..etc”., and followed by the conclusion derived from Par.[0415] in Jeong stating;
“It would be apparent to a POSA that even when the single MMVD enable flag indicates that MMVD mode can be used in all prediction techniques, this does not mean that the MIMVD is actually used in affine mode for coding a current video
PNG
media_image1.png
14
43
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.”
Examiner’s Rebuttal
It is contended that Jeong, does, expressly teach the claimed matter under which the MMVD flag is being enabled, as cited from Par.[0415] below cited without referring to other modes available to be “simultaneously” applied under the one MMVD flag e.g., by the representative flag mmvd_enable_flag being enabled;
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, where under the representative flag mmvd_enable_flag being, “1”, any another particular flag (i.e., a second affine MMVD flag) may be conditionally signaled and be parsed at decoder indicating that the MMVD mode is applied as one of other prediction techniques, hence including the MMVD affine mode (Id. Par.[0415]) as detailed at Par.[0416] below,
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and further expressly teaching that the MMVD mode is applied to an affine technique according to Par.[0417] reproduced below,
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, finds sufficient support for the rebuttal premise as detailed.
It may be concluded that Applicant’s selective emphasis on the “simultaneous” application of other prediction technologies derived from Jeong’s Par.[0415] represents a piece-meal interpretation which may not support Applicant’s exclusive interpretation of related to the alleged; “syntax may be simultaneously controlled by one representative MMVD enable flag“, of all other prediction technologies.
Other prediction technologies are described in alternative by using the compound preposition “such as” (at Par.[0415]) which represents non-restrictive information among which the MMVD mode to be applied to an affine control point is considered in the alternative from “other technologies”, proving the argument unpersuasive. Furthermore, as derived from Par.[0416] citation, wherein when the mmvd_enable_flag is “1”, the decoding apparatus 1700 may sequentially parse flags i.e., secondary flags indicating that the MMVD mode is applied in other inter prediction techniques, and continuing to reference e.g., the MMDV affine technique at Par.[0417].
However in lieu of the previous limitation reciting a method of “performing a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video based on at least one flag of:“, followed by two limitations of a fist flag, being an MMVD flag and separated by an “OR “ logic from a second flag being MMVD affine flag limitation, reserves the analysis to a single choice where only one of the MMVD flag OR the affine MMVD flag may be optionally addressed and selected for examination as originally mapped at the claims.
The Applicants’ argument is deemed moot since in terms of the method for video processing claiming; “As another example, to represent a flag of the MMVD mode for other prediction technologies such as an MMVD mode to be applied to an affine control point,”, only one of the alternate claimed flags would be processed at a time though could be signaled in particular for all other prediction technologies.
It is rather contended that Jeong teaches both aspects of the limiting claimed matter as evidenced in the Action on Merit with the choice of selecting one only for examination as indicated by the OR logic recited.
(5.2) The remaining independent and dependent claims are not argued by Applicants in regard to the art of reference used in the Action on Merit.
(5.3) The objection to allow issued to claims 4-5, is withdrawn based on Applicants’ declining the proposed amendment.
(5.4) This Office Action is brought to finality based on the art disclosed in the IDS filed on 01/14/2026 in an effort to more clearly define the video process claimed in view of the skilled in the art as being reinforced by the art to Leleannec. The original art of reference is considered pertinent and therefore retained along with the supplementary evidentiary probe indicated at point 4, applied mutatis mutandis.
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently does not name joint inventors.
6. Claims 1-13, 15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seungsoo Jeong et al., (hereinafter Jeong) (US 2022/0021900) in view of IDS art to, Fabrice Leleannec et al., (hereinafter Leleannec) (US 2022/0078488).
Re Claim 1. (Original) Jeong discloses, a method for video processing (Abstract), comprising:
performing a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video based on at least one flag of (performing a video block prediction based on either a signaled syntax in the bitstream of the coded images by encoder 1610, in Fig.16 and received at decoder in Fig,17, Par.[0217, 0222-0226] by at least one flag Par.[0236, 0240]):
a first flag indicating whether a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) (a merge mode flag mmvd_merge_flag, indicating MMVD mode, Par.[0426]) is used for the current video block (by a first merge flag indicating whether the MMVD is used for the current block prediction, Par.[0236-0240] or when MMVD is enabled at Par.[0241] and expressly teaching the claimed matter under which the MMVD flag being enabled, as cited from Par.[0415] without referring to other modes available being applied simultaneously but rather sequentially by using the MMVD flag e.g., a representative flag mmvd_enable_flag is being enabled to be used in an MMVD affine transformation;
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where the representative flag mmvd_enable_flag is “1”, another particular flag (i.e., a second affine MMVD flag) may be conditionally signaled flag may be parsed at decoder indicating that the MMVD mode is applied to other prediction techniques, hence including the MMVD affine mode (Id. Par.[0415]) as detailed at Par.[0416] below,
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
), or
a second flag indicating whether an affine MMVD is used for the current video block (a second flag for MMVD mode to be applied to the affine control points, Par.[0415-0417] and further expressly teaching that the MMVD mode is applied to an affine technique according to Par.[0417] reproduced below,
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.),
wherein the at least one flag is bypass coded or is coded with at least one context (a context index for affine merge mode is applied, at Par.[0406]) determined from a plurality of contexts (at the syntax element obtainer 1710, where at least one flag indicates decoding in bypass mode and also using context information, Par.[0269-0272, 0311, 0370]).
In an analogous art Leleannec teaches the claimed,
a first flag indicating whether a merge mode with motion vector difference (MIMVD) is used for the current video block, or a second flag indicating whether an affine MMVD is used for the current video block (parsing a first and a second flag and coding according to motion information corresponding with the first motion mode, at steps 3610-3630 in Fig.36 or the block 1002 of Fig.5 and allowing the affine mode in combination with MMVD Par.[0150] thus combining the MMVD and Affine modes per embodiment 4 at Par.[0152-0154]),
The one skilled in the art would have recognized as obvious to interpret and combine the teachings identified in Jeong, to be obviously described by the details for Merge under different motion vector difference (MVD) e.g., (MMVD) modes application by a bitstream signaled syntax for a first and a second prediction modes, in Leleannec, (at Par.[0004-0005]) where the Affine mode is allowed within the MMVD merge flag by a syntax index merge_index currently disclosed in VVC draft 3, (Par.[0150]), by which improving the coding efficiency beyond simple translational models, e.g., by applying affine models per VVC standard, (Par.[0061]), hence finding the combination predictable according to the claimed matter.
Re Claim 2. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1, Jeong teaches, wherein the first flag is an MMVD flag, and the second flag is an affine MMVD flag (a first flag as revealed from Par.[0236-0240] for whether the MMVD is enabled at Par.[0241], or a second flag Par.[0415]), or
wherein the at least one context is determined from the plurality of contexts based on information parsed before the at least one flag is parsed (a context is selected from a plurality of MMVD merge index Par.[0367] or the binarized contexts indices from within the bitstream Par.[0368-0376], before the flag is parsed at decoder indicating whether MMVD mode is enabled for various tools obtained from the SPS syntax, where the distance and direction index are signaled separately for the motion vector, Par.[0241-0243] and Fig.23 and the context information and distance index are parsed before the MMVD flag, Par.[0307-0311]).
Re Claim 3. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 2,
Jeong teaches, wherein the information comprises a coding mode of the current video block or dimensions of the current video block (the prediction block size is determined, Par.[0474, 0476-0484, 0490-0500] ot the prediction mode Par.[0501] etc.).
Re Claim 4. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1,
Jeong teaches, wherein the at least one context is determined from the plurality of contexts based on information on whether the MMVD is used for at least one neighboring block of the current video block (Par.[0269]).
Re Claim 5. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 4, wherein the at least one neighboring block comprises at least one of the following:
Leleannec teches about, a top block above the current video block, or a left block on a left side of the current video block (the motion vector difference (MVD) technique is applied to the neighboring block of the current block positioned at top and/or left as in Par.[0063-0064, 0180-0182] or as related to the MMVD affine mode at Par.[0105, 0110-0111]).
Re Claim 7. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1, Jeong teaches, wherein the at least one context is determined from the plurality of contexts based on information on whether skip mode is used for the current video block (the context is based on information of skip mode being used under various embodiments taught at, Par.[0232, 0254, 0297-0298, 0301, 0308-0310, 0316, 0322, 0346, 0423]).
Re Claim 8. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 7, Jeong teaches, wherein the at least one context comprises a first context, if the skip mode is used for the current video block, the at least one context comprises a second context different from the first context, if the skip mode is not used for the current video block (a different context is used by determining the current block only from the prediction samples of the current block, when skip mode is not used, Par.[0314]).
Re Claim 9. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1, Jeong teaches, wherein the at least one context is determined from the plurality of contexts based on a prediction direction of the current video block (context is determined from the prediction direction, Par.[0317-0318 ] according to a direction index, Par.[0343]), or
wherein the at least one context comprises a first context, if uni-prediction is used for the current video block (the same for uni-directional prediction); and
the at least one context comprises a second context different from the first context, if bi-prediction is used for the current video block (it would be obvious to the skilled in the art to conclude that a bi-prediction would be represented by two different reference blocks/vectors, L0 and L1, based on two different directions and vector magnitude, thus different context models per the direction index, Par.[0343]).
Re Claim 10. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1, Jeong teaches, wherein the at least one context is determined from the plurality of contexts based on at least one of the following:
information parsed before the at least one flag is parsed,
information on whether the MMVD is used for at least one neighboring block of the current video block (the context information and distance index are parsed before the MMVD flag, Par.[0307-0311]),
information on whether skip mode is used for the current video block, or
a prediction direction of the current video block (also the skip mode or prediction direction index is parsed Par.[0310-0311].
Re Claim 11. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1, Jeong teaches, wherein the MMVD or the affine MMVD is used for the current video block, and performing the conversion comprises:
determining a motion vector candidate for the current video block based on an initial step size (determining a motion vector candidate MVD, based on initially signaled resolution or distance of pixel resolution Par.[0331-0332]); and
performing the conversion based on the motion vector candidate (performing the prediction based on the MVD candidate, (Par.[0331]).
Re Claim 12. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 11, Leleannec teaches that, wherein the initial step size is dependent on a delta picture order count (POC) associated with the current video block, the delta POC is determined based on a difference between a POC of the current video block and a POC of a reference block of the current video block (the MV difference signal is determined as a function of the POC distances, Par.[0094]).
Re Claim 13. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1, Jeong teaches, wherein the MMVD or the affine MMVD is used for the current video block (obtaining MMVD motion vector and merge vector difference Par.[0381] and Fig.24), and performing the conversion comprises:
determining a plurality of motion vector candidates for the current video block based on a plurality of step sizes and respective sets of directions associated with each of the plurality of step sizes, the number of directions in a set of directions being dependent on a step size associated with the set of directions (the MMVD mode includes a merge candidate list including motion vector candidates indicated by a merge index distinguished according to a distance and a direction, Par.[0232]); and
performing the conversion based on the plurality of motion vector candidates (performing prediction based on the above merge candidate from among the motion vector candidates, Par.[0232-0233]).
Re Claim 15. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein the affine MMVD is used for the current video block, and performing the conversion comprises:
Leleannec teaches about, obtaining a set of motion candidates for the current video block based on the affine MMVD (parsing a flag and coding according to motion information corresponding with the first motion mode, at steps 3610-3630 in Fig.36 or the block 1002 of Fig.5 and allowing the affine mode in combination with MMVD Par.[0150] thus combining the MMVD and Affine modes per embodiment 4 at Par.[0152-0154]);
determining whether to check the set of motion candidates based on a set of affine merge costs associated with the set of motion candidates (limiting the rate cost of the MMVD signaling while allowing the affine mode Par.[0155]); and
performing the conversion based on the determination (same is used in coding process, Par.[0155]).
Re Claim 17. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1, Jeong teaches, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream; and
wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (an encoding and decoding method and apparatus as represented at Title).
Re Claim 18. (Original) This claim represents the apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon (Jeong Par.[0508]), wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor (Jeong Par.[0074] and Fig.1), implements each and every limitation of the method claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary probe mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 19. (Currently Amended) This claim represents the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by a processor, implements each and every limitation of the method claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary probe mapped mutatis mutandis.
20. (Cancelled).
Re Claim 21. (New) This claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) requiring clarification.
7. Claims 14 and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong and Leleannec, in view of Naeri Park et al., (hereinafter Park) (US 2022/0224911).
Re Claim 14. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein the affine MMVD is used for the current video block, the current video block comprises a plurality of subblocks, and performing the conversion (obtaining MMVD motion vector and merge vector difference Par.[0381] and Fig.24) comprises: but not expressly teaching the application of templates associated with subblocks coding,
Park teaches this limitation of,
determining a prediction for a first subblock (as applied to the subblocks Par.[0114] when MMVD is used, Par.[0134]) of the plurality of subblocks based on a template associated with the first subblock (determining the prediction based on a template match scheme, Par.[0083, 0088-0091]); and
performing the conversion based on the prediction (applying the prediction mode information for the current block, Par.[0082]).
The ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of invention to consider similar arts under which the disclosure in Jeong and Leleannec, where the application of a template match would represent a method by which the prediction precision may be increased and compression performance may be enhanced without additional signaling, as identified in the art to Park (Par.[0088]), hence deeming such combination predictable.
Re Claim 16. (Original) Jeong and Leleannec disclose, the method of claim 1, wherein performing the conversion comprises:
Jeong teaches about, determining a plurality of motion vector candidates for the current video block based on the at least one flag (determining the motion vector candidates Par.[0030, 0297] based on at least one flag, e.g., the merge mode flag mmvd_merge_flag, indicating MMVD mode, Par.[0426]) is used for the current video block (by a first merge flag indicating whether the MMVD is used for the current block prediction, Par.[0236-0240] or when MMVD is enabled at Par.[0241]); but without expressly teaching the limitations below,
Park teaches this limitation of,
determining a set of target motion vector candidates from the plurality of motion vector candidates (as applied to the subblocks Par.[0114] when MMVD is used, Par.[0134]) d by performing cost calculation on the plurality of motion vector candidates; (determining the prediction based on a template match scheme, Par.[0083, 0088-0091]); and
performing the conversion based on the set of target motion vector candidates (applying the prediction mode information for the current block based on the motion vector candidate, Par.[0082]).
The ordinary skilled in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of invention to consider similar arts under which the disclosure in Jeong and Leleannec, where the application of a template match would represent a method by which the prediction precision may be increased and compression performance may be enhanced without additional signaling, as identified in the art to Park (Par.[0088]), hence deeming such combination predictable.
Conclusion
8. Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 01/14/2026, prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 extension fee 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 DAVE J CZEKAJ. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6:00 Monday-Thursday and every other Friday.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487