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 .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 1/19/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Huang fails to disclose selecting a refinement mode based on a comparison of the first, second, and third minimized costs. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Huang discloses in [0203] selecting an adaptive bilateral matching mode and [0205] selecting a regular mode. Both of these are based on MVD. MVD are based on 3 different cost as disclosed in [0173-0175]. In fact, [0206] discloses refining based on minimizing cost. Therefore, rejection is maintained.
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) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220417522 A1-Huang et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Huang”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a video coding method ([0006]) comprising:
receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video ([0006]), the current block associated with a first motion vector referring a first initial predictor in a first reference picture and a second motion vector referring a second initial predictor in a second reference picture ([0132-0133]);
refining the first and second motion vectors to minimize first, second, and third costs according to first, second, and third refinement modes, respectively ([0134], wherein refining first and second motion vectors; [0203-0209]);
selecting a refinement mode based on a comparison of the first, second, and third minimized costs ([0203-0216]; 0203] selecting an adaptive bilateral matching mode and [0205] selecting a regular mode. Both of these are based on MVD. MVD are based on 3 different cost as disclosed in [0173-0175]. In fact, [0206] discloses refining based on minimizing cost.); and
encoding or decoding the current block by using the selected refinement mode to modify the first and second motion vectors for reconstructing the current block ([0034]).
Regarding claim 2, Huang discloses the video coding method of claim 1, wherein the first and second motion vectors are refined in one or more refinement passes ([0161-0164]), wherein the first, second, and third costs are computed after one refinement pass ([0161-0164]).
Regarding claim 3, Huang discloses the video coding method of claim 1, wherein the first and second motion vectors are refined in one or more refinement passes ([0161-0164]), wherein the first, second, and third costs are computed after two refinement passes([0161-0164]).
Regarding claim 4, Huang discloses the video coding method of claim 3, wherein during a second refinement pass, the first and second motion vectors are refined for each sub-block of a plurality of sub-blocks of the current block in ([0161-0164]), wherein during a third refinement pass, the first and second motion vectors are refined by applying bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) ([0161-0164]).
Regarding claim 5, Huang discloses the video coding method of claim 1, wherein the first, second, and third minimized costs are weighted before the comparison ([0123]).
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 11, circuit ([0253])
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 12, wherein decoder performs the opposite of the encoder (Fig 1).
Conclusion
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 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