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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 21, 23-24, 26-28, 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CHUBACH et al. (US 20240357082 A1).
Regarding claim 1. (Currently Amended) CHUBACH discloses A method for video encoding in a video encoder (abstract, A video coding system), comprising:
performing template matching (TM) on respective bi-prediction with coding unit (CU)- level weighting (BCW) candidate weights of a current block in a current picture (figure 8, [0011] the multiple candidate coding modes correspond to different bidirectional weighting indices (BCW indices) that identify different weighting options for prediction samples obtained with two motion vectors in bidirectional prediction for the current block. The video encoder may reorder the bidirectional weighting indices based on TM costs computed for the multiple candidate coding modes; [0056] the BCW indices are reordered based on TM costs of individual weighting parameter options (w), so that the BCW index with the best TM cost is placed at the beginning of the list and coded with the minimum index cost (e.g., signaled in the bitstream with the least number of bits.); [0057]) by
determining a respective TM cost corresponding to each of the respective BCW candidate weights (figure 8, [0011] the multiple candidate coding modes correspond to different bidirectional weighting indices (BCW indices) that identify different weighting options for prediction samples obtained with two motion vectors in bidirectional prediction for the current block. The video encoder may reorder the bidirectional weighting indices based on TM costs computed for the multiple candidate coding modes; [0056] the BCW indices are reordered based on TM costs of individual weighting parameter options (w), so that the BCW index with the best TM cost is placed at the beginning of the list and coded with the minimum index cost (e.g., signaled in the bitstream with the least number of bits.); [0057]), each TM cost being determined based at least on a portion or all of a current template of the current block and a respective bi-predictor template (figure 8, [0057] For each BCW index (and corresponding weight parameter w), the video coder computes the bi-prediction for the current CU according to Eq. (1), except P.sub.0 and P.sub.1 are reference templates 811 and 812. The bi-prediction result of each BCW index is matched with a L-shaped current template 810 of the current CU 800 to produce the TM cost of that BCW index), the bi-predictor template being based on the respective BCW candidate weight, a portion or all of a first reference template in a first reference picture, and a portion or all of a second reference template in a second reference picture, the first reference template and the second reference template corresponding to the current template (figure 8, [0057] a current CU 800 has a L0 MV 806 and a L1 MV 807. The L0 MV 806 is used to identify a L-shaped reference template 811 in the L0 reference picture and the L1 MV 807 is used to identify a L-shaped reference template 812 in the L1 reference picture);
determining one of the BCW candidate weights that corresponds to a smallest TM cost among the determined TM costs as a selected BCW weight ([0056] the BCW indices are reordered based on TM costs of individual weighting parameter options (w), so that the BCW index with the best TM cost is placed at the beginning of the list; [0057] In the example, the BCW index 0 is reordered as 1, the BCW index 1 is reordered as 3, the BCW index 2 is reordered as 2. The BCW index 3 is reordered as 0 because it has the lowest TM cost); and
encoding the current block in a bitstream based on the selected BCW weight (figure 10, [0083] The computed TM costs are provided to a candidate selection module 1040, which may use the TM costs to select a lowest cost candidate coding mode for encoding the current block).
Regarding claim 3. (Currently Amended) CHUBACH discloses The method of claim 1, wherein
all of the current template is used to determine each TM cost (figure 8, [0057] For each BCW index (and corresponding weight parameter w), the video coder computes the bi-prediction for the current CU according to Eq. (1), except P.sub.0 and P.sub.1 are reference templates 811 and 812. The bi-prediction result of each BCW index is matched with a L-shaped current template 810 of the current CU 800 to produce the TM cost of that BCW index); and
for each BCW candidate weight,
all of the first reference template which is determined based on a first motion vector (MV) of the current block is used to calculate the bi-predictor template (figure 8, [0057] a current CU 800 has a L0 MV 806 and a L1 MV 807. The L0 MV 806 is used to identify a L-shaped reference template 811 in the L0 reference picture and the L1 MV 807 is used to identify a L-shaped reference template 812 in the L1 reference picture), and
all of the second reference template which is determined based on a second MV of the current block is used to calculate the bi-predictor template (figure 8, [0057] a current CU 800 has a L0 MV 806 and a L1 MV 807. The L0 MV 806 is used to identify a L-shaped reference template 811 in the L0 reference picture and the L1 MV 807 is used to identify a L-shaped reference template 812 in the L1 reference picture).
Regarding claim 4. (Original) CHUBACH discloses The method of claim 3, wherein
for each BCW candidate weight, the bi-predictor template is a weighted average of all of the first reference template and all of the second reference template, weights of the weighted average being based on the respective BCW candidate weight (figure 8, [0057] For each BCW index (and corresponding weight parameter w), the video coder computes the bi-prediction for the current CU according to Eq. (1), except P.sub.0 and P.sub.1 are reference templates 811 and 812. The bi-prediction result of each BCW index is matched with a L-shaped current template 810 of the current CU 800 to produce the TM cost of that BCW index; [0054]-[0055] Equation 1, P.sub.0 represents pixel values predicted by L0 MV (or L0 prediction). P.sub.1 represents pixel values predicted by L1 MV (or L1 prediction). P.sub.bi-pred is the weighted average of P.sub.0 and P.sub.1 according to the weighting parameter w).
Regarding claim 6. (Original) CHUBACH discloses The method of claim 1, wherein
a shape of the current template is based on one or more of (i) reconstructed samples of a neighboring block of the current block, (ii) a decoding order of the current block, or (iii) a size of the current block (figure 8, unit 810).
Regarding claim 7. (Original) CHUBACH discloses The method of claim 1, wherein
the current template includes one or more reconstructed regions that are neighboring regions of the current block (figure 8, unit 810).
Regarding claim 8. (Original) CHUBACH discloses The method of claim 7, wherein
the one or more reconstructed regions that are neighboring regions of the current block are one of (i) a left neighboring region and a top neighboring region, (ii) the left neighboring region, the top neighboring region, and a top-left neighboring region, (iii) the top neighboring region, or (iv) the left neighboring region (figure 8, unit 810).
Regarding claim 21, the same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Furthermore, CHUBACH discloses
transmitting the bitstream ([0078] The bitstream 995 is in turn stored in a storage device or transmitted to a decoder over a communications medium such as a network).
Regarding claim 23, the same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 24, the same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 26, the same analysis has been stated in claim 6.
Regarding claim 27, the same analysis has been stated in claim 7.
Regarding claim 28, the same analysis has been stated in claim 8.
Regarding claim 30, the same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Furthermore, CHUBACH discloses
decoding prediction information of a current block in a current picture from a coded video bitstream (figure 9, figure 10, figure 12, figure 13, [0078] The entropy encoder 990 encodes various header elements, flags, along with the quantized transform coefficients 912, and the residual motion data as syntax elements into the bitstream 995; [0091]; [0094]);
determining that the prediction information indicates (i) the current block being predicted with bi-prediction ([0011]; [0054]) and (ii) a bi-prediction coding unit (CU)-level weights (BCW) being enabled for the current block ([0055] a SPS flag is used to indicate whether BCW mode is enabled or disabled (sps_bcw_enabled_flag)).
Regarding claim 31, the same analysis has been stated in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHUBACH et al. (US 20240357082 A1) in view of ZHANG et al. (US 20240275941 A1).
Regarding claim 5. (Original) ZHANG discloses
a current block is predicted with an affine adaptive motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode with multiple control points (figure 42A, figure 42B, [1153] In VVC, a block-based affine transform motion compensation prediction is applied. As shown FIGS. 42A and 42B, which illustrate examples 4210 and 4220 of control point based affine motion model, the affine motion field of the block is described by motion information of two control point (4-parameter) or three control point motion vectors (6-parameter)); and
a first MV and a second MV are associated with a control point of the multiple control points (figure 42A, figure 42B, [1153] In VVC, a block-based affine transform motion compensation prediction is applied. As shown FIGS. 42A and 42B, which illustrate examples 4210 and 4220 of control point based affine motion model, the affine motion field of the block is described by motion information of two control point (4-parameter) or three control point motion vectors (6-parameter)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of CHUBACH and ZHANG, to perform template matching (TM) on respective bi-prediction with coding unit (CU)-level weighting (BCW) candidate weights based on an affine adaptive motion vector prediction mode, in order to enhance motion compensation accuracy.
Regarding claim 25, the same analysis has been stated in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 29 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights