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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 23 December 2025, with respect to 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 and 103 rejections of claims 1-12 and 14 has been withdrawn. A new rejection is below.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 1-3,5,9, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Chiang US 20200169757.
Regarding claim 1, Chiang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
An image decoding method, the method comprising:
performing a bidirectional prediction based on a first inter prediction mode to generate a basic prediction block of a current block (i.e. multi-hypothesis mode uses two predictions where a first prediction can be bi-predicted) [51,59,88; fig. 8b];
generating an additional prediction block of the current block based on a second inter prediction mode (i.e. multi-hypothesis mode uses two predictions where a second prediction can be inter-predicted) [51,59,88; fig. 8b]; and
generating a final prediction block of the current block by weighed summing of the basic prediction block and the additional prediction block (i.e. MH modes for inter that modifies the generated inter-prediction by weighted sum with another inter-prediction that is generated based on another merge candidate.) [51,59,88; fig. 8b].
Regarding claim 2, Chiang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the first inter prediction includes at least one of a merge mode, an AMVP mode or a merge-AMVP combined mode (i.e. merge mode discussed as a prediction mode) [51].
Regarding claim 3, Chiang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein: the second inter prediction mode includes a multi-hypothesis prediction mode (i.e. multi-hypothesis mode uses two predictions where a first prediction can be bi-predicted) [51,59,88; fig. 8b].
Regarding claim 5, Chiang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the method further includes acquiring information on the second inter prediction mode from a bitstream (i.e. inter prediction information included in the bitstream) [57].
Regarding claim 9, Chiang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 5, wherein: the information on the second inter prediction mode is acquired from the bitstream when a predefined condition is satisfied, the predefined condition is defined without considering Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution (AMVR) information (i.e. inter prediction information included in the bitstream. This would be done without considering AMVR.) [57].
Claim 12 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
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 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.
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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 4, and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Moon US 20210274214.
Regarding claim 4, Chiang do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein: when a plurality of the additional prediction blocks are generated, the final prediction block is generated by sequentially weighted summing the plurality of the additional prediction.
However, in the same field of endeavor Moon discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein: when a plurality of the additional prediction blocks are generated, the final prediction block is generated by sequentially weighted summing the plurality of the additional prediction (i.e. sequential weighting performed for prediction) [276,291].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Chiang with Moon to have wherein: when a plurality of the additional prediction blocks are generated, the final prediction block is generated by sequentially weighted summing the plurality of the additional prediction.
It would be advantageous because “[0005] In addition, another object of the present invention is to provide an encoding and decoding method of deriving more accurate motion information.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Chiang with Moon to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Moon meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 5, wherein: the information on the second inter prediction mode includes at least one of weight information or prediction information, the weight information represents information indicating a weight used for the weighted sum of the additional prediction block, the prediction information represents information for deriving the additional prediction block (i.e. weight information indicates weights for weighted sum and is transmitted to a decoder) [259,262,290-291].
Claim 7 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2.
Claim 8 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 7 and further below.
Chiang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
the prediction information further includes a merge index, when the mode flag indicates that the AMVP mode is used to derive the additional prediction block [6,7], the prediction information includes at least one of a motion vector predictor flag, a reference index or motion vector difference information [6,76].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Jang US 20180270485.
Regarding claim 10, Chiang do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein: the method further includes acquiring Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution (AMVR) information from the bitstream, acquiring the AMVR information is performed before acquiring the information on the second inter prediction mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor Jang discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein: the method further includes acquiring Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution (AMVR) information from the bitstream, acquiring the AMVR information is performed before acquiring the information on the second inter prediction mode (i.e. AMVR used and the flag is acquired before obtaining other prediction information) [10].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Chiang with Jang to have the method further includes acquiring Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution (AMVR) information from the bitstream, acquiring the AMVR information is performed before acquiring the information on the second inter prediction mode.
It would be advantageous because "[0006] The present invention also provides a method and apparatus for improving the efficiency of inter prediction.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Chiang with Jang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426