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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, applicant argues that Chen does not disclose using affine model to generate the initial interpolated reference blocks for bilateral matching. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant describes in the specification “a pair of affine model may be involved in the initial interpolation and proceeds to give examples. Those examples are affine motion compensation (MC), which is used instead of translation MC to generate the initial interpolated block. To be consistent with applicant’s specification, Chen discloses in [0016] and fig 7, affine MC for bilateral matching. In addition, [0089] discloses using affine motion compensation. Motion compensation inherently uses interpolation, which is nothing more than a sub pixel prediction. Initial motion vectors are used as starting points as disclosed in [0091]. MC may also use interpolation filters to perform the calculations as disclosed in [0065].
Applicant argue, on page 9, that Chen fails to disclose "wherein both the at least one first affine model and the at least one second affine model are non-translational affine motion models." The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen discloses in [0083], that the 4-parameter affine motion model has a horizontal zoom parameter that can be equal to the vertical zoom parameter, and the horizontal rotation parameter can be equal to the vertical rotation parameter. The rotational parameter is interpreted as a non translational model. In addition, [0085], discloses that a 6-parameter affine motion model contains two parameters for zoom motion and rotation motion respectively in the horizontal direction, and another two parameters for zoom motion and rotation motion respectively in the vertical direction. The rotational and zoom parameters are interpreted as non translational model. Therefore, Chen discloses "wherein both the at least one first affine model and the at least one second affine model are non-translational affine motion models." Thus, rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6, 10-11, 15-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by US 20240129519 A1-Chen et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a (Fig 1-3, 11) method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks ([0059], receives bitstream; [0077], wherein receiving bitstream);
deriving a set of motion vectors for a current block of the plurality of blocks ([0046], wherein motion vectors determined; [0004], determining initial motion vector; [0092], wherein initial motion vector has multiple motion vectors, which is interpreted as the set) ;
deriving a set of refined motion vectors for the current block using a bilateral matching search and multiple affine models ([0004], bilateral matching based motion refinement process and refining the motion vector applies an affine motion model; [0025]; [0091-93], discloses a set (more than 1) of refined motion vectors) including using at least one first affine model to perform the bilateral matching search ([0102]: wherein the at least one first affine model is used to generate initial interpolated reference blocks for the bilateral matching search (The applicant describes in the specification “a pair of affine model may be involved in the initial interpolation and proceeds to give examples. Those examples are affine motion compensation (MC), which is used instead of translation MC to generate the initial interpolated block. To be consistent with applicant’s specification, Chen discloses in [0016] and fig 7, affine MC for bilateral matching. In addition, [0089] discloses using affine motion compensation. Motion compensation inherently uses interpolation, which is nothing more than a sub pixel prediction. Initial motion vectors are used as starting points as disclosed in [0091]. MC may also use interpolation filters to perform the calculations as disclosed in [0065]); and
and using at least one second affine model to perform final motion compensation ([0082]), wherein the at least one second affine model has a different number of parameters than the at least one first affine model ([0102], wherein before the bilateral matching based motion refinement process 706 is performed, the affine motion model of the video block may be a 4-parameter affine motion model (with 2 CPMVs) or a 6-parameter affine motion model (with 3 CPMVs); When the bilateral matching is utilized, the assumed motion model between the current prediction and the matching target may be linear or non-linear, which may be represented by a 2-parameter (linear), 4-parameter (non-linear), or 6-parameter (non-linear) motion model.) and wherein both the at least one first affine model and the at least one second affine model are non-translational affine motion models (Chen discloses in [0083], that the 4-parameter affine motion model has a horizontal zoom parameter that can be equal to the vertical zoom parameter, and the horizontal rotation parameter can be equal to the vertical rotation parameter. The rotational parameter is interpreted as a non translational model. In addition, [0085], discloses that a 6-parameter affine motion model contains two parameters for zoom motion and rotation motion respectively in the horizontal direction, and another two parameters for zoom motion and rotation motion respectively in the vertical direction. The rotational and zoom parameters are interpreted as non translational model).
reconstructing the current block using the derived set of refined motion vectors ([0077], reconstructs current block).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more affine models includes at least one predefined affine model ([0082]).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein deriving the set of refined motion vectors comprises applying the set of motion vectors to a plurality of affine models to identify the set of refined motion vectors ([0104-0106]).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising selecting the one or more affine models from a plurality of affine models based on coded information ([0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the coded information includes a gradient of translational interpolated blocks ([0103-0106]).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of refined motion vectors comprise a plurality of subblock motion vectors and wherein deriving the set of refined motion vectors comprises: using the multiple affine models to calculate the plurality of subblock motion vectors for subblocks of the current block ([0085-0087], wherein each subblock can be derived using affine models); and applying the bilateral matching to each of the plurality of subblock motion vectors to obtain the set of refined motion vectors ([0087-0089], wherein bilateral matching occurs).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the at least one second affine model is used to perform an affine bi-directional prediction ([0088]).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising, when using the multiple affine models to derive the set of refined motion vectors, automatically enabling one or more affine-related decoder side processes ([0103], wherein the affine related motion models are interpreted as the 6-parameter motion model. The claim doesn’t specify what the affine related processes are).
Regarding claim 21, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 2 and are applicable for claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 25.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240129519 A1-Chen et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chen”), in view of US 20210195177 A1-Zhang et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 (See claim 1),
Chen fails to disclose deriving the multiple affine models based on one or more of: a reference affine model used for a neighboring block of the current block, and an affine model from a model bank.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses deriving the one or more affine models based on one or more of: a reference affine model used for a neighboring block of the current block, and an affine model from a model bank ([0119], wherein affine models associated with neighboring blocks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to disclose deriving the one or more affine models based on one or more of: a reference affine model used for a neighboring block of the current block, and an affine model from a model bank as taught by Zhang, to improve coding efficiency by improving coding gain of affine mode based coding ([0087], Zhang).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the method of claim 1,
Chen fails to disclose identifying the multiple affine models based on one or more of: a reference affine model used for a spatial neighboring block of the current block, and a reference affine model for a temporal neighboring block of the current block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses identifying the multiple affine models based on one or more of: a reference affine model used for a spatial neighboring block of the current block, and a reference affine model for a temporal neighboring block of the current block ([0050], 0058], and [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to disclose identifying the multiple affine models based on one or more of: a reference affine model used for a spatial neighboring block of the current block, and a reference affine model for a temporal neighboring block of the current block as taught by Zhang, to improve coding efficiency by improving coding gain of affine mode based coding ([0087], Zhang).
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240129519 A1-Chen et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chen”), in view of US US 20050094852 Kumar et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Kumar”).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 (See claim 1),
Chen fails to disclose wherein the multiple affine models comprise an affine model associated with global motion.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kumar discloses wherein the multiple affine models comprise an affine model associated with global motion ([0013]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to disclose wherein the multiple affine models comprise an affine model associated with global motion as taught by Kumar, to provide an acceptable tradeoff between generality and ease of estimation ([0013], Kumar).
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240129519 A1-Chen et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chen”), in view of US US 20200288163 A1-Poirier et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Poir”).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses the method of claim 1 (See claim 1),
Chen fails to disclose wherein deriving the set of refined motion vectors comprises: using the first affine model to perform a first search of motion vector candidates; using a translational model to perform a second search of motion vector candidates; and selecting motion vector candidates from the results of the first and second searches having a lowest distortion for the set of refined motion vectors.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Poir discloses wherein deriving the set of refined motion vectors comprises: using the first affine model to perform a first search of motion vector candidates ([0099]); using a translational model of the to perform a second search of motion vector candidates ([0099]); and selecting from the results of the first and second searches motion vector candidates having a lowest distortion for the set of refined motion vectors( [0099])..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to disclose deriving the set of refined motion vectors comprises: using an affine model of the one or more affine models to perform a first search of motion vector candidates; using a translational model of the one or more affine models to perform a second search of motion vector candidates; and selecting motion vector candidates having a lowest distortion for the set of refined motion vectors as taught by Poir, to improve affine mode by determining a set of predictor candidates in the Affine Merge mode ([0088], Poir)
Claim 13-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240129519 A1-Chen et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chen”), in view of US US 20200288163 A1-Poirier et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Poir”), in view of US 20180205965 A1-Chen 2)
Regarding claim 13, Poir discloses the method of claim 12 (See claim 12),
Chen and Poir fail to disclose wherein the translational model is assigned a higher priority than the affine model.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen 2 discloses wherein the translational model is assigned a higher priority than the affine model ([0012], wherein non-affine mode ranks first. Non-affine mode is interpreted as a translational mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to disclose wherein the translational model is assigned a higher priority than the affine model as taught by Chen2, to improve coding efficiency (abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Poir discloses the method of claim 12 (See claim 12),
Poir fails to disclose wherein the affine model is assigned a higher priority than the translational model.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen 2 discloses wherein the affine model is assigned a higher priority than the translational model ([0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to disclose wherein the affine model is assigned a higher priority than the translational model as taught by Chen2, to improve coding efficiency (abstract).
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240129519 A1-Chen et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chen”), in view of Patent 10778999 B2-Li et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses the method of claim 1,
Chen fails to disclose wherein deriving the set of refined motion vectors comprises: using the one or more affine models on a first reference picture; and using one or more translational models on a second reference picture.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses wherein deriving the set of refined motion vectors comprises: using the multiple affine models on a first reference picture (column 5, lines 5-15, wherein affine motion for a first reference frame); and using one or more translational models on a second reference picture (Column 5, lines 20-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to disclose wherein deriving the set of refined motion vectors comprises: using the one or more affine models on a first reference picture; and using one or more translational models on a second reference picture taught by Li, to improve video quality (Li).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights