DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on December 23, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments made to original claims 1, 6, 11-12, and 14 have been fully considered.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments and amendments received December 23, 2025 have been fully considered.
With regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art fails to disclose how to define the size of the non-adjacent area, e.g., determine it according to corresponding predefined value or corresponding signaled value. This language corresponds to the newly amended language of claims 1, 6, and 11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant appears to acknowledge, in Lai, the available regions for non-adjacent spatial neighboring candidates may limited to be within the same CTU or a certain number of CTUs. “Predefined value” is a vague term and 1 CTU or X CTUs is, in fact a pre-defined value. However, for the sake of clarity, Examiner has included a secondary reference that more clearly describes that it was known to predetermine AND signal CTU size.
See the rejection below for further explanation regarding how the art on record in view of a newly added reference reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0232012 (“Lai”), which corresponds to a provisional filed January 14, 2022, in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0112738 (“Lee”).
With respect to claim 6, Lai discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
An apparatus for video decoding, comprising:
one or more processors (see ¶¶69, 72, describing that the decoder may be embodied by a processor/CPU executing computer program code); and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors (see citations with respect to element above – Examiner takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a processor/CPU for executing computer program code to have included a memory couple to the processor to store such code),
wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions, are configured to perform operations comprising:
obtaining, a first restricted neighbor area of a current block as a first scanning area and a second restricted neighbor area of the current block as a second scanning area, wherein the first restricted neighbor area and the second restricted neighbor area are separate, wherein a size of the first restricted neighbor area and a size of the second restricted neighbor area are defined… (see Fig. 9B, 11, items 1110-1120, ¶¶61-63, describing obtaining a restricted neighbor area (e.g., above block 920 in Fig. 9b) of a current block (e.g., block 920) as a first checking, i.e., scanning, area and a second restricted neighbor (e.g., to the left of block 920) area of the current block (e.g., block 920) as a second checking, i.e., scanning area; as can be seen in Fig. 9b, these restricted neighbor areas are separate);
obtaining, one or more motion vector (MV) candidates from a plurality of non-adjacent neighbor blocks to the current block based on the first and second scanning areas (see citations with respect to element above and Fig. 10, 11, item 1120, describing obtaining MV candidates from non-adjacent spatial neighbor blocks to the current block in these checking/scanning areas (above the current block and to the left of the current block)); and
obtaining, one or more control point motion vectors (CPMVs) for the current block based on the one or more MV candidates (see citations and arguments with respect to elements above and Fig. 11, item 1130, describing obtaining CPMVs for the current block based on the motion information of the motion information of the non-adjacent spatial neighbor candidates, i.e., based on the one or more MV candidates).
As detailed above, Lai does not explicitly disclose a memory for storing the computer program code executed by the processor. However, Examiner takes Official Notice that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood a processor/CPU for executing computer program code to have included a memory couple to the processor to store such code.
As detailed in the Arguments section above, Lai does not explicitly state that CTU size is signaled from the encoder to the decoder and it does not describe the CTU size as a “predefined value”.
In the same field of endeavor Lee makes clear that CTU size may be both a predefined value and a value signaled from encoder to decoder as syntax, i.e.:
wherein a size of the first restricted neighbor area and a size of the second restricted neighbor area are defined according to corresponding predefined value or corresponding signaled value carried in a bitstream (see ¶99, showing and describing that it was known to predefine and signal CTU size through the SPS, PPS, or slice header from encoder to decoder, i.e., as syntax from the encoder to the decoder; note that although these paragraphs are not required to show the above element, Fig. 11, and ¶¶153-154, 157, also describe limiting non-adjacent candidates to being within a CTU).
As detailed above, Lai describes that the first and second restricted neighbor areas may be defined according to CTU boundaries (see citations above). Although Lai doesn’t describe that the CTU size (indicating its boundaries) is predefined at the encoder and signaled to the decoder, at the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with how a system would know/determine CTU size in order to execute the methods described in Lai. Lee shows that one of these known methods is to predefine the CTU size at the encoder and signal it to the decoder in syntax. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, doing so in the system of Lai to define the CTU-based neighbor area limits would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for predefining CTU size (i.e., restricted neighbor areas) at the encoder and signaling it to the decoder in the coding system of Lai as taught by Lee.
With respect to claim 7, Lai discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Lai in view of Lee discloses all the elements of independent claim 6. Lai/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise:
obtaining, the first restricted neighbor area within a current coding tree unit (CTU); or
obtaining, the first restricted neighbor area outside of the current CTU and within a first area above a top side of the current CTU, wherein the first area is within a first number of pixels away from the top side of the current CTU (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 6 above and Lai ¶¶62-63, describing that the region of non-adjacent spatial neighboring blocks may be restricted to be within the CTU or may be outside the current CTU in an area above a top side of the current CTU within a specific distance from the current block, i.e., within a first number of pixels away from the top side).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 6 also apply to claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, Lai discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Lai in view of Lee discloses all the elements of dependent claim 7. Lai/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein the first number is determined according to an existing line buffer (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 6-7 above and Lai ¶63, describing that the constraints on the non-adjacent neighbors may be in order to reduce buffer requirement, i.e., the constraint is determined according to an existing line buffer).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 6 also apply to claim 8.
With respect to claim 9, Lai discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Lai in view of Lee discloses all the elements of independent claim 6. Lai/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein the operations further comprise:
obtaining, the second restricted neighbor area within a current coding tree unit (CTU); or
obtaining, the second restricted neighbor area outside of the current CTU and within a second area on the left of a left side of the current CTU, wherein the second area is within a second number of pixels away from the left side of the current CTU (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 6 above and Lai ¶¶62-63, describing that the region of non-adjacent spatial neighboring blocks may be restricted to be within the CTU or may be outside the current CTU in an area above a left side of the current CTU within a specific distance from the current block, i.e., within a second number of pixels away from the left side).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 6 also apply to claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Lai discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Lai in view of Lee discloses all the elements of dependent claim 9. Lai/Lee additionally discloses:
wherein the second number is determined according to an existing line buffer (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 6 and 9 above and Lai ¶63, describing that the constraints on the non-adjacent neighbors may be in order to reduce buffer requirement, i.e., the constraint is determined according to an existing line buffer).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 6 also apply to claim 10.
With respect to claim 1, claim 1 recites the elements of claim 6 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 6 also applies to claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, claim 2 recites the elements of claim 7 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 7 also applies to claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, claim 3 recites the elements of claim 8 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 8 also applies to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, claim 4 recites the elements of claim 9 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 9 also applies to claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, claim 5 recites the elements of claim 10 in method form rather than apparatus form. Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 10 also applies to claim 5.
With respect to claim 11, claim 11 recites the elements of claim 6 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than apparatus form. Claim 11 is additionally directed to an encoder/encoding method rather than a decoder/decoding method. Lai discloses that its apparatus may be embodied by one or more processors/CPUs executing program code (see ¶¶69, 72) and that its methods may be applied by encoders or decoders (see ¶¶41, 68-69). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 6 also applies to claim 11.
With respect to claim 12, claim 12 recites the elements of claim 7 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than apparatus form. Claim 12 is additionally directed to an encoder/encoding method rather than a decoder/decoding method. Lai discloses that its apparatus may be embodied by one or more processors/CPUs executing program code (see ¶¶69, 72) and that its methods may be applied by encoders or decoders (see ¶¶41, 68-69). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 7 also applies to claim 12.
With respect to claim 13, claim 13 recites the elements of claim 8 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than apparatus form. Claim 13 is additionally directed to an encoder/encoding method rather than a decoder/decoding method. Lai discloses that its apparatus may be embodied by one or more processors/CPUs executing program code (see ¶¶69, 72) and that its methods may be applied by encoders or decoders (see ¶¶41, 68-69). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 8 also applies to claim 13.
With respect to claim 14, claim 14 recites the elements of claim 9 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than apparatus form. Claim 14 is additionally directed to an encoder/encoding method rather than a decoder/decoding method. Lai discloses that its apparatus may be embodied by one or more processors/CPUs executing program code (see ¶¶69, 72) and that its methods may be applied by encoders or decoders (see ¶¶41, 68-69). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 9 also applies to claim 14.
With respect to claim 15, claim 15 recites the elements of claim 10 in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than apparatus form. Claim 15 is additionally directed to an encoder/encoding method rather than a decoder/decoding method. Lai discloses that its apparatus may be embodied by one or more processors/CPUs executing program code (see ¶¶69, 72) and that its methods may be applied by encoders or decoders (see ¶¶41, 68-69). Accordingly, the disclosure cited with respect to claim 10 also applies to claim 15.
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 LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481