DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 07/25/2024, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and are examined as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/25/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation phrase (line 3) “includes a first prediction mode with mode specific buffer” (emphasis added) appears it should read “with a mode specific buffer”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
Claims 1, 11-13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Su H. et al. WO 2023/287418 A1, hereinafter referred to as Su, where Su discloses various techniques related to motion vectors and reference frame types in a motion vector buffer of a reference motion vector candidate bank which can result in more than 0.5% PSNR gains over the AV1 baseline (abstract and ¶0039). Please see below for further details.
Regarding claim 1, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Su teaches and/or suggest “A computer-implemented method comprising: determining, from a plurality of prediction modes that can be used to determine historical data for a frame data from a frame in a video sequence [Each reference frame in Su corresponds to a reference frame type (A-N) that may be used depending on the type of prediction selected for a current frame. Selected reference frames then identify motion vectors (MV) for predicting blocks to be coded. See e.g. ¶0031-¶0034, ¶0067 and the MV banks in fig. 10], a prediction mode for data that represents the frame data in the frame [A prediction mode from multiple prediction modes can be selected (i.e. determined) and used with an available reference frame of a given type A-N (e.g. ¶0031-¶0034) that represents the frame data to be coded]; in response to determining the prediction mode [Selecting a prediction mode. See ¶0031-¶0034], selecting, using the prediction mode, one or more buffers from a plurality of buffers [See for e.g. ¶0067. Please refer to the MV banks shown in fig. 10 (and corresponding text), where each MV buffer corresponds to a particular reference frame type (A-N) that may be used depending on the type of prediction selected (e.g. ¶00113)], each buffer of which is for a prediction mode from the plurality of prediction modes [Since each reference frame type (A-N) that may be used depends on the type of prediction selected (e.g. ¶0067 and ¶001113), each MV buffer holding said reference frame must also depend on the type of prediction selected], a first quantity of buffers in the plurality of buffers being less than a second quantity of prediction modes in the plurality of prediction modes [Su discloses multiple inter-prediction modes (¶0031) such as for e.g. single, compound, ZERO_MV, NEAR_MV, and NEAREST_MV. Fig. 10 discloses MV buffers per MV bank, where one or more buffers can be available for storing MVs. For e.g., if one buffer is available, then this will be less than the number of multiple inter-prediction modes (¶00102). Also, in fig. 10, MV bank 1015 for e.g., includes MV buffers 1034, 1036, 1038, and 1040 (¶00109) which is less than the modes above]; retrieving, from each of the one or more buffers, historical data for the frame data [As shown in the MV bank of fig. 10, historical data used for predicting a current frame, can be retrieved (i.e. randomly selected) from the MV buffers for coding purposes. See for e.g. ¶00126]; and in response to retrieving the historical data, generating, using the historical data, updated data for the frame data in the frame of the video sequence.” [With respect to updating the MV buffers, see for e.g. ¶0038]
Regarding claim 11, Su teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “wherein: determining the prediction mode comprises determining, from the plurality of prediction modes that includes a first prediction mode with mode specific buffer in the plurality of buffers [Given the BRI, fig. 10 shows for each MV buffer of each bank, there is a reference frame type which depends on a prediction mode (e.g. ¶00113), i.e. a MV buffer by itself can be considered mode specific] and a second prediction mode without a mode specific buffer in the plurality of buffers [If for e.g. compound reference frame prediction mode is selected (e.g. ¶0032-¶0033), then combinations of reference frames may be used. This is construed to mean said mode does not rely on one mode specific buffer], a determined prediction mode for data that represents the frame data in the frame [See for e.g. ¶0067, ¶00113, and fig. 10 where each MV buffer corresponds to a particular reference frame type (A-N) that may be used depending on the type of prediction selected which can be from multiple inter-prediction modes (¶0031)]; selecting the one or more buffers [See for e.g. ¶0065-¶0066 and ¶0068 regarding reference frames stored in a buffer. Also note the use of virtual and physical indexes which identify where the reference frame can be found in the buffer for performing prediction] comprises selecting, from the plurality of buffers that includes the mode specific buffer and a mode agnostic buffer that is not specific to any particular prediction mode from the plurality of prediction modes [Fig 10], a buffer for the determined prediction mode from the plurality of buffers [As shown in fig. 10, any one buffer can be selected corresponding to a MV and reference frame type]; and retrieving the historical data for the frame data comprises retrieving, from the buffer, second historical data for the determined prediction mode. [As shown in the MV bank of fig. 10, historical data used for predicting a current frame, can be retrieved (i.e. randomly selected) from the MV buffers for coding purposes. See for e.g. ¶00126]
Regarding claim 12, Su teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “wherein selecting the buffer comprises selecting the buffer from the plurality of buffers [See for e.g. ¶0065-¶0066 and ¶0068 regarding reference frames stored in a buffer. Also note the use of virtual and physical indexes which identify where the reference frame can be found in the buffer for performing prediction] that includes a first mode specific buffer for a single-prediction mode [¶0031 shows for a single reference frame prediction mode, only one MV from one buffer is used; hence, this buffer can be considered mode specific], a second mode specific buffer for a multiple-prediction mode [¶0031-¶0032 describe a compound reference frame prediction mode which uses more than one MV contained in multiple mode specific buffers], and the mode agnostic buffer for one or more additional prediction modes. [Su’s MV candidate bank (fig. 10) can be construed as mode agnostic]
Regarding claim 13, Su teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the one or more additional prediction modes comprise a second single-prediction mode and a second multiple-prediction mode.” [See for e.g. ¶0031-¶0032 with respect to single and compound reference frame prediction modes]
Regarding claim 17, Su teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “wherein selecting, using the prediction mode, the one or more buffers from the plurality of buffers [See fig. 10] comprises selecting, using the prediction mode, one or more buffer banks from a plurality of buffer banks [See fig. 10], each buffer bank of which i) is for a prediction mode from the plurality of prediction modes [Each bank shown in fig. 10 contains buffers that correspond with a reference frame type which in turn correspond with a prediction mode] and ii) comprises two or more buffers each of which store respective historical data according to an order. [Each bank contains a plurality of buffers which store MVs and reference frame types (i.e. historical data). As shown in fig. 10, the stored data is an ordered list (e.g. ¶00126)]
Regarding claim 18, Su teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “comprising: after selecting the one or more buffer banks, determining, for each of the one or more buffer banks and using the order [See citations of claim 17 above], a buffer in the respective buffer bank into which to store second historical data [See for e.g. ¶00123. Also note figs. 11-13 and corresponding text regarding the MV buffer and stored historical data]; removing, from each of the one or more buffer banks, stored historical data from the respective buffer [¶00123 describes removing a previously added MV from at least one MV buffer]; and storing, for each of the one or more buffer banks, the second historical data in the respective buffer.” [¶00123 further describes adding a second MV to the buffer]
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the clamed hardware and software, see for e.g. ¶00135 of Su with respect to fig. 14.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the clamed hardware and software, see for e.g. ¶00135 of Su with respect to fig. 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su, in view of view of Han et al. US 2020/0112741 A1, hereinafter referred to as Han.
Regarding claim 2, Su teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “wherein: the one or more buffers comprise a mode agnostic buffer bank that is not specific to any particular prediction mode from the plurality of prediction modes [Since a MV buffer bank is a collection of MV buffers and each MV buffer refers to a reference frame type associated with a prediction mode, said buffer bank can be considered mode agnostic (e.g. fig. 10 and ¶00113). See Han below for further support]; and selecting the one or more buffers comprises selecting an indexed buffer, from the buffer bank, that is for the prediction mode.” [See for e.g. ¶0065-¶0066 and ¶0068 regarding labels, roles, or types used to describe reference frames stored in a buffer. Also note the use of a virtual and physical indexes which identify where the reference frame can be found in the buffer for performing prediction] Although Su’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the claim, the work of Han from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to further teach and/or suggest “wherein: the one or more buffers comprise a mode agnostic buffer bank that is not specific to any particular prediction mode from the plurality of prediction modes” [See ¶0137, where different inter-prediction modes are described which can share the same HMVP table. Since there is no dependency in said table with the prediction mode, it can be construed as an agnostic buffer bank] Given Han’s techniques, 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 video coding methods of Su with respect to a reference motion vector candidate bank (abstract), with the teachings of Han above that may be applied to existing video codecs to help improve history-based motion vector predictors or which may serve as an efficient coding tool in any future video coding standards (e.g. ¶0005).
Regarding claim 3, Su and Han teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “ “comprising maintaining, in the mode agnostic buffer bank for each prediction mode in a proper subset of prediction modes from the plurality of prediction modes [Fig. 10 shows a plurality of MV buffer banks containing MV buffers each with a reference frame type associated with different prediction modes (e.g. ¶00113). Here a selected mode can be construed as a subset of the prediction modes. See Han below for further support.], historical data for the respective prediction mode.” [Each entry (i.e. MV buffer) of the MV bank (fig. 10) contains motion vector and reference frame information, i.e. historical data, for coding purposes] Although Su’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the claim, the work of Han from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to further teach and/or suggest “comprising maintaining, in the mode agnostic buffer bank for each prediction mode in a proper subset of prediction modes from the plurality of prediction modes” [See ¶0137. Different inter-prediction modes can share the same HMVP table, i.e. there is no dependency with the prediction mode] The motivation for combining Su and Han has been discussed in connection with claim 2, above.
Regarding claim 5, Su and Han teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the historical data comprises a motion vector and a reference frame.” [See for e.g. abstract and ¶0039, where buffers holding historical data, include motion vectors (MV) and reference frames]
Regarding claim 6, Su and Han teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “wherein selecting the indexed buffer [See for e.g. ¶0065-¶0066 and ¶0068 with respect to an indexed buffer. Also refer to fig. 6] comprises: determining whether a reference frame for the frame data satisfies a similarity criterion for a candidate reference frame maintained in the mode agnostic buffer bank [See for e.g. ¶00130 with respect to finding a ‘matching’ reference frame type in the buffer, where by ‘matching’, a similarity criterion must have been satisfied. Thus, matching can be understood as being based on a similarity measure for determining a candidate reference frame.]; and selecting the indexed buffer that maintains the candidate reference frame in response to determining that the reference frame for the frame data satisfies the similarity criterion for the candidate reference frame maintained in the indexed buffer.” [¶00130 of Su shows that based on the matching, a candidate reference frame can be determined]
Regarding claim 7, Su and Han teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “wherein selecting the indexed buffer comprises: in response to determining that the reference frame for the frame data satisfies the similarity criterion for the candidate reference frame maintained in the indexed buffer [¶00130 of Su shows that based on the matching (i.e. a similarity criterion must be satisfied), a candidate reference frame can be determined], determining whether the prediction mode for the frame data is the same as a reference prediction mode for the indexed buffer [A candidate reference frame has a given reference frame type (A-N) which depends on the prediction mode selected (e.g. ¶0067 and ¶001113). Thus, Su appears to suggest the prediction mode will be the same]; and selecting the indexed buffer that maintains the candidate reference frame in response to determining that the prediction mode for the frame data is the same as the reference prediction mode for the indexed buffer. [Same citations above]
Regarding claim 8, Su and Han teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “wherein selecting the indexed buffer [See for e.g. ¶0065-¶0066 and ¶0068 with respect to an indexed buffer. Also refer to fig. 6] comprises: determining whether the prediction mode for the frame data is the same as a reference prediction mode for the indexed buffer [A candidate reference frame has a given reference frame type which depends on the prediction mode selected (e.g. ¶0067 and ¶001113). Thus, Su seems to suggest the prediction mode will be the same]; and selecting the indexed buffer that maintains the reference prediction mode in response to determining that the prediction mode for the frame data is the same as the reference prediction mode for the indexed buffer. [See e.g. ¶0065-¶0066 and ¶0068 regarding labels, roles, or types used to describe reference frames stored in a buffer. Also note the virtual and physical indexes to identify the reference frame for performing prediction]
Regarding claim 9, Su and Han teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su further teaches and/or suggests “comprising determining the reference prediction mode for the indexed buffer using a motion vector maintained in the indexed buffer.” [Each reference frame type that may be used depends on the type of prediction selected (e.g. ¶0067 and ¶001113); hence, each MV buffer holding said reference frame must also depend on the type of selected prediction]
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su, in view of view Han, and in further view of Li et al. US 2021/0274163 A1, hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 4, Su and Han teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Su and Han however does not appear to address the features of claim 4. Li on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “comprising selecting, using frequencies in which the prediction modes from the plurality of prediction modes occur, the prediction modes in the proper subset of prediction modes.” [¶0130 of Li describes an ordered list of prediction modes based on a use frequency or selection probability of each of the mode candidates] Given Li’s techniques, 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 video coding methods of Su with respect to a reference motion vector candidate bank (abstract) with the teachings of Li above for increasing the overall image/video compression efficiency by reducing the overhead induced by signaling of information on the intra prediction mode (e.g. ¶0016).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 10 and 14-16 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
10. The method of claim 2, comprising: determining, for each candidate reference frame maintained in the mode agnostic buffer bank, whether a reference frame for second frame data satisfies a similarity criterion for the candidate reference frame; determining that the reference frame for the second frame data does not satisfy the similarity criterion for any of the plurality of candidate reference frames maintained in the mode agnostic buffer bank; and in response to determining that the reference frame for the second frame data does not satisfy the similarity criterion for any of the plurality of candidate reference frames maintained in the mode agnostic buffer bank: determining to skip using data from the mode agnostic buffer bank for an encoding or decoding operation for the second frame data; and performing the encoding or decoding operation using the reference frame and the second frame data.
14. The method of claim 11, wherein the first prediction mode was assigned a mode specific buffer based at least on a frequency with which the first prediction mode is used to encode frames satisfying a frequency threshold.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the second prediction mode was not assigned a mode specific buffer based at least on a second frequency with which the second prediction mode is used to encode frames not satisfying the frequency threshold.
16. The method of claim 14, wherein the frequency comprises a frequency with which the first prediction mode is used to encode the frames in the video sequence.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486