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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 0 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited prior art Wang fails to teach (1) "determining a set of motion candidates based on an initial motion candidate and the search range" and (2) "the coding information comprises at least one of: a prediction mode, a block size, a motion vector difference, an adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR) precision, or an integer motion vector (IMV) precision." Regarding the Applicant's arguments the Examiner disagrees. Wang teaches in paragraphs 0091-0094 that in a bi-prediction operation (which reads upon the at least one of: a prediction mode) motion vector candidates are determined within the search area around the initial motion vector. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the area around the initial motion vector in the bi-prediction operational mode defines the search range. The new grounds of rejection is necessitated by the Applicant's amendment.
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)(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) 1-8, 13-14, 17-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2021/0314596.
As to claim 1, Wang teaches a method of video processing, comprising: determining, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit, a search range of a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process based on coding information associated with the video unit; [¶ 0091-0094] wherein the coding information comprises at least one of: a prediction mode, a block size, a motion vector difference, an adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR) precision, or an integer motion vector (IMV) precision; [¶ 0091-0094] determining a set of motion candidates based on an initial motion candidate and the search range; [¶ 0091-0094] and performing the conversion based on the set of motion candidates. [figs. 2-4; ¶ 0055; ¶ 0070-0072; ¶ 0076-0078]
As to claim 2, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein the DMVR process is a prediction unit (PU) or coding unit (CU) based DMVR process. [¶ 0097-0098]
As to claim 3, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein the DMVR process is an MxN subblock based DMVR process, and wherein M and N are integer numbers, respectively. [¶ 0098]
As to claim 4, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein regarding the DMVR process, a maximum allowed search range for a full-pel DMVR is based on a prediction mode of the video unit. [¶ 0098; ¶ 0195-0197]
As to claim 5, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein regarding the DMVR process, a maximum allowed search range for a full-pel DMVR is based on at least one of: a motion vector or a motion vector difference of the video unit. [¶ 0098; ¶ 0195-0197]
As to claim 6, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein regarding the DMVR process, a maximum allowed search range for a full-pel DMVR is based on at least one of: a precision of motion vector difference, an AMVR precision, or an IMV precision of the video unit. [¶ 0098; ¶ 0195-0197]
As to claim 7, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein regarding the DMVR process, a maximum allowed search range for a full-pel DMVR is based on a resolution of a current picture of a reference picture. [¶ 0098; ¶ 0195-0197]
As to claim 8, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein regarding the DMVR process, a maximum allowed search range for a full-pel DMVR is indicated from an encoder to a decoder. [¶ 0075-0076; ¶ 0098; ¶ 0195-0197]
As to claim 13, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein whether at least one of: a two-direction refinement process or a one-direction refinement process is applied to the video unit is determined based on a prediction mode of the video unit. [¶ 0048-0050; ¶ 0073; ¶ 0107; ¶ 0128-0135]
As to claim 14, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 13. Wang teaches wherein both the two-direction refinement process and the one-direction refinement process are allowed for a certain prediction mode, and/or wherein a prediction unit (PU) or coding unit (CU) level full-pel DMVR search is applied to an ADMVR mode, and/or wherein an approach of applying at least one: DMVR or ADMVR is based on a motion vector difference. [¶ 0091-0093; ¶ 0134; ¶ 0195]
As to claim 17, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream. [figs. 2-4; ¶ 0054; ¶ 0067; ¶ 0076; ¶ 0080]
As to claim 18, Wang 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, [fig. 4; ¶ 0084-0085; ¶ 0199] cause the processor to: determine, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit, a search range of a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process based on coding information associated with the video unit; [¶ 0091-0094] wherein the coding information comprises at least one of: a prediction mode, a block size, a motion vector difference, an adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR) precision, or an integer motion vector (IMV) precision; [¶ 0091-0094] determine a set of motion candidates based on an initial motion candidate and the search range; [¶ 0091-0094] and perform the conversion based on the set of motion candidates. [figs. 2-4; ¶ 0055; ¶ 0070-0072; ¶ 0076-0078]
As to claim 19, Wang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor [¶ 0199] to: determine, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit, a search range of a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process based on coding information associated with the video unit; [¶ 0091-0094] wherein the coding information comprises at least one of: a prediction mode, a block size, a motion vector difference, an adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR) precision, or an integer motion vector (IMV) precision; [¶ 0091-0094] determine a set of motion candidates based on an initial motion candidate and the search range; [¶ 0091-0094] and perform the conversion based on the set of motion candidates. [figs. 2-4; ¶ 0055; ¶ 0070-0072; ¶ 0076-0078]
As to claim 21, Wang teaches a method for storing bitstream of a video, comprising: determining a search range of a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process based on coding information associated with a video unit of the video, [¶ 0091-0094] wherein the coding information comprises at least one of: a prediction mode, a block size, a motion vector difference, an adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR) precision, or an integer motion vector (IMV) precision; [¶ 0091-0094] determining a set of motion candidates based on an initial motion candidate and the search range; [¶ 0091-0094] generating a bitstream of the target block based on at least one of: the DMVR process or the DMVR variant; [abstract; figs. 1-3; ¶ 0043; ¶ 0090-0091] and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. [¶ 0039]
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 2021/0314596 in view of Zhang et al. US 2024/0179342.
As to claim 9, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang teaches the encoder processes iteratively. [¶ 0056] Wang does not explicitly teach wherein a motion candidate for an adaptive decoder side motion vector refinement (ADMVR) mode is refined by iteratively applying a refinement process.
Zhang teaches wherein a motion candidate for an adaptive decoder side motion vector refinement (ADMVR) mode is refined by iteratively applying a refinement process. [abstract; ¶ 0123-0125]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Zhang with the teachings of Wang allowing for improved coding efficiency.
As to claim 10, Wang (modified by Zhang) teaches the limitations of claim 9. Zhang teaches wherein the motion candidate is a prediction unit (PU) level motion vector, and/or wherein the refinement process is a one-direction refinement process. [¶ 0048; ¶ 0123-0125; ¶ 0170-0177]
As to claim 11, Wang (modified by Zhang) teaches the limitations of claim 9. Zhang teaches wherein both single step one-direction refinement process and an iterative one-direction refinement process are allowed to the ADMVR mode. [abstract; ¶ 0048; ¶ 0060-0063; ¶ 0123-0125; ¶ 0170-0177]
As to claim 12, Wang (modified by Zhang) teaches the limitations of claim 9. Zhang teaches wherein whether the iterative one-direction refinement process to be applied to the video unit is indicated in the bitstream, and/or wherein a DMVR mode is refined by an iterative process. [¶ 0048; ¶ 0060-0063; ¶ 0123-0125; ¶ 0170-0177]
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. US 2021/0314596 in view of Kang et al. US 2023/0058283.
As to claim 15, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Wang does not explicitly teach wherein a reference picture resampling is applied to one color component of the video unit.
Kang teaches wherein a reference picture resampling is applied to one color component of the video unit. [¶ 0113-0114; ¶ 0120-0124]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Kang with the teachings of Wang allowing for improved coding efficiency. [¶ 0008]
As to claim 16, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 15. Kang teaches wherein a plurality of syntax elements is indicated at a video unit level, and the plurality of syntax elements individually specifies an allowance of reference picture resampling for each color components, and/or wherein a syntax element is indicated at a video unit level, and the syntax element specifies a picture width and height for chroma component. [¶ 0113-0114; ¶ 0120-0124]
Conclusion
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 ANNER HOLDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571.272.7383. 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.
/ANNER HOLDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights