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 .
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.
2. Claim 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is noted that, the claim is directed to; A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a
Bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed … method comprises:
The limitation as recited in the preamble does not make it clear whether the computer readable
medium contains instructions to perform the method or not. Additionally, it is not clear if the
video processing is operating on the bitstream stored on the medium or not since the claim appears to recite two separate functions.
In accordance with compact prosecution as prescribed in MPEP 2173.06, claim language is
interpreted as follows: Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when
there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05
III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a
functional relationship exists if the programming "performs some function with respect to the computer
with which it is associated." Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium
merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information
or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
However, claim 20 is directed to A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a
Bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed … method comprises: The body of the claim appears to indicate how the bitstream is being generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable recording medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight, and claim 20 considered as vague and indefinite.
Double Patenting
3. Claims 1-20 are finally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over patented claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12081767, and patented claims 1,7,11 and 18 of US 11575887, and patented claims 1-2 and 17-18 of US 12034964, either alone or in-combination; for the same reason as set forth in the previous office action, mailed 10/01/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewcz et.al. (US 20180278949) in view of Leleannec et al. (US 2022/0078488).
Regarding claim 1, Karczewcz teaches a method of processing video data (e.g., fig. 2),
Comprising; determining, for a conversion between a first block of a video and a bitstream of the first block, whether a symmetric motion vector difference (SVD) mode for the first block is enabled or disabled (e.g., paragraphs 0006,0043-0044,0047,0159, indication of in paragraph 0043, In some examples, the enabling of symmetric or anti-symmetric MV/MV differences constraints are explicitly signaled. In other examples, the constraints may be implicitly determined according to some coded information. Furthermore, in paragraph 0047, in some examples, a single constraint "e.g., symmetric MVs, symmetric MV difference, anti-symmetric MVs, or anti-symmetric MV difference" is applied to derived MVs based on a condition), based on a motion vector difference (MVD) precision or a motion vector (MV) precision of the first block (e.g., figs. 2-3, paragraphs 0034,0043,0045,0048,0073), and performing the conversion based on the determining (e.g., figs. 2-3, paragraphs 0045, indicating, In a further example, the MV resolution of symmetric constraint can be assigned in a deterministic fashion. In one example, for integer-pel refinement of Bilateral Template Matching, no symmetric
/pseudosymmetric/asymmetricconstraint should be imposed, and the aforementioned constraints are only on half-pel, quarter-pel, or higher-precision motion refinement. The level of constraint (at which MV resolution) can be signaled through SPS/PPS/Slice Header. The resolution can also be decided along with whether other motion-refinement tools such as BIO, sub-pel frame-rate up-conversion (FRUC) are enabled).
Karczewcz, is silent to explicitly teach, wherein the first block is coded with affine mode, the SMVD mode is an affine SMVD mode, the MVD precision is an affine MVD precision, and the MV precision is an affine MV precision.
Leleannec, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., abstract, figs. 9,25-27,33 and paragraphs 0045,0075-0077,0105,0150-0155,0204) teaches affine mode, and further MVD and SMVD motion vector tools with the affine motion model, thus considered equivalent to the above limitation.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such know teaching, in order to
simplify coding modes based on neighboring samples dependent parametric models, as suggested by
the reference, paragraph 0003.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1, wherein the SVD mode is disabled for partial coding units (CUs) depending on the MVD precision (e.g., paragraphs 0203,0232 of ‘949).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1, wherein the SMVD mode is disabled when the MVD precision is lower than or equal to a threshold precision (e.g., paragraphs 0033,0045-0046,0059,0226-0227 of ‘949).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1, wherein the SMVD mode is disabled when the MVD precision is higher than or equal to a threshold precision (e.g., paragraphs 0033,0045-0046,0059,0226-0227 of ‘949).
Regarding claims 5-6, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach wherein the threshold precision is an integer-pel precision (e.g., paragraphs 0059,0082,0226 of ‘949).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1, wherein partial MVD precisions are disabled when the SMVD mode is applied (e.g., paragraphs 0202-0206 of ‘949).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1,
wherein signaling of the MVD precision depends on the usage of SMVD (e.g., paragraphs 0006,0043,
0074-0075 of '949).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Chien and Karczewicz, teach the method of claim 8,
wherein when the SMVD made is disabled for one MVD precision, the signaling of MVD precision is
modified accordingly; and/or if one MVD precision is disallowed when SMVD mode is enabled, only one
bit is coded for an AMVR mode (e.g., paragraphs 0045,0226-0227 of '949).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the SMVD mode is disabled when all MVD components of reference picture list 0 and/or reference picture list 1 of the first block are zero (e.g., paragraphs 0043-0046,0106,0155-0156,0227 of ‘949).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the SMVD mode is signaled after motion information of reference picture list 0 and/or reference picture list 1 of the first block (e.g., paragraphs 0043-0047,0145-0146,0155, 0220-0221,
table 3, of ‘949).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1, wherein signaling of a MVD depends on a determination whether the SMVD mode for the first block is enabled or disabled, wherein: when the SMVD mode is enabled for the first block and a horizontal component of the MVD is equal to 0, a vertical component of the MVD is not equal to 0, or the vertical component of the MVD is conditionally signaled, wherein the signaling of the vertical component of the MVD depends on the determination whether the SMVD mode for the first block is enabled or disabled, and/or the signaling of an indication of whether the vertical component of the MVD is non-zero depends on one of the following conditions: an SMVD flag is true and a value of horizontal component of the MVD is not equal to 0, or the SMVD flag is false (e.g., it is noted that the claim is in an alternative form, and paragraphs 0043-0047,0145-0146,0155,0220-0221, of ‘949 meets one of the above alternatives).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1, wherein a set of allowed MVD precisions depends on a determination whether the SMVD mode for the first block is enabled or disabled, wherein: when the SMVD mode is enabled, lower MVD precisions are allowed, wherein the lower MVD precision includes at least one of 1/4-pel, 2-pel and 8-pel, or when the SMVD mode is enabled, higher MVD precisions are allowed, wherein the higher MVD precision includes at least one of 1/4-pel, 1/2-pel or 1/8-pel (e.g., claim is in an alternative form, and paragraphs 0045,
0226 '949 meets one of the above alternatives).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the determining is further based on an indication signaled in a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a tile group header, a slice header, a sequence header, a picture header, a tile or a group of coding tree units (CTUs), or wherein the determining further depends on at least one of block dimension, a virtual pipelining data unit (VPDU) picture type, a low-delay check flag or coding information associated with the first block or previously coded blocks (e.g., claim is in an alternative form, and paragraphs 0045,0063,0072,0226 of ‘949 meets one of the above alternatives).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1,
wherein motion information of the first block is affine motion information, and SMVD MVD components are affine SMVD MVD components, wherein: the SMVD mode is not signaled when all MVD components of reference picture list 0 or reference picture list 1 of the first block are zero, the SMVD mode is not signaled when absolute value of horizontal or/and vertical affine MVD component of N control points in reference picture list 0 or reference picture list 1 of the first block is less than a threshold, N is an integer larger and/or equal to 1, or the SMVD mode is not signaled when absolute sum of horizontal and vertical affine MVD component of N control points in reference picture list 0 or reference picture list 1 of the first block is less than a threshold, N is an integer larger and/or equal to 1, or the SMVD mode is not signaled when absolute value of horizontal or/and vertical affine MVD component of N control points in reference picture list 0 or reference picture list 1 of the first block is greater than the threshold, N is an integer larger and/or equal to 1, or the SMVD mode is not signaled when absolute sum of horizontal and vertical affine MVD component of N control points in reference picture list 0 or reference picture list 1 of the first block is greater than the threshold, N is an integer larger and/or equal to 1, and wherein when the SMVD mode is not signaled, the SMVD mode is not applied (e.g., claim is set in an alternative format, and abstract, figs. 9,25-27,33 and paragraphs 0045,0075-0077,0105,0150-0155,0204 of ‘488 meets one of the above alternatives, such as affine mode, and further MVD and SMVD motion vector tools with the affine motion model).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the conversion includes encoding the first block into the bitstream (e.g., figs. 2-3 of ‘949).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Karczewcz and Leleannec, teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the conversion includes decoding the first block from the bitstream (e.g., fig. 3 of ‘949 and or fig. 4 of ‘488).
Regarding claims 19-20, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above,
Therefore, the ground for rejecting claim 1 also applies here.
Conclusion
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can
normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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,
Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571 272 7331. 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.
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482