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 Amendment and Argument
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to pending claims 1-3, 5-14, 16 and 18-20 filed on 08/12/2026 have been fully considered but the argument regarding the rejection under 35 USC § 103 of the claims has been rendered moot in view of a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment of the pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Summary of Arguments:
Applicant requests the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 8 under 35 USC § 112.
Examiner’s Response:
In view of the amendment of claim 8, the rejection under 35 USC § 112 of the claim is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Summary of Arguments:
Applicant requests the withdrawal of the rejection of claim 20 under 35 USC § 102.
Examiner’s Response:
In view of the amendment of claim 20, the rejection under 35 USC § 102 of the claim is withdrawn. The claim is now rejected on a new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendment of the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 16, 18, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20220239899 A1) in view of Laroche et al. “On ARMC improvements” Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 26th Meeting, by teleconference, 20–29 April 2022, Document: JVET-Z0103-v1.
Note: The current application claims priority to KR10-2022-0041026 filed on 04/01/2022. However, foreign priority application is in Korean language, and an English translation of the certified copy has not been provided. Accordingly, applicant has not established that the subject matter of the rejected claims is entitled to the foreign priority filed on 04/01/2022. Applicant is required to provide an English translation of the certified copy of the foreign applicant pursuant to 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3) for purpose of determining entitlement to the to the claimed foreign priority date. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches the claim as follows:
An image decoding method comprising: constructing a candidate list related to prediction of a current block (¶0128-0136: The entropy decoding unit 301 may retrieve an encoded bitstream. The encoded bitstream may include entropy coded video data (e.g., encoded blocks of video data). The Entropy decoding unit 301 may decode the entropy coded video data…The intra prediction unit 303 may use intra prediction modes for example received in the bitstream to form a prediction block from spatially adjacent blocks. ¶0139, 0164, 0224, 0233: a list of candidates are constructed, e.g. spatial motion vector prediction (MVP) from spatial neighbor coding units (CUs), temporal MVP from collocated CUs, history-based MVP); generating a prediction block of the current block based on a candidate selected from the candidate list (¶0135: The intra prediction unit 303 may use intra prediction modes for example received in the bitstream to form a prediction block from spatially adjacent blocks. ¶0140, 0224: a best candidate for the current video block may be selected from the constructed merge candidate list, and an index (also referred to as merge index) for the best merge candidate in the list may be encoded into the bitstream); and generating a reconstructed block of the current block based on the prediction block (¶0136: The reconstruction unit 306 may obtain the decoded blocks, e.g., by sum the residual blocks with the corresponding prediction blocks…), wherein the constructing of the candidate list includes: adding first candidates derived from spatially neighboring blocks, second candidates derived from temporally neighboring blocks, and third candidates derived from non-neighboring blocks to the candidate list as candidates in a predetermined order (¶0164, 0233: the grouping information may be adaptively generated by the video decoder 300 for each video block. For example, it may be predefined that a size of at least one of the plurality of subgroups is determined based on at least one of: a number of available adjacent spatial merge candidates, a number of available spatial temporal motion vector prediction (STMVP) merge candidates, a number of available temporal merge candidates, a number of available non-adjacent spatial merge candidates, a number of available HMVP merge candidates…¶0250, 0253: the video decoder 300 constructs a list of candidates according to the predetermined order…); sorting positions of the candidates based on template matching costs (¶0173: the video encoder 200 construct a list of candidates (also referred to as a final list of candidate) by reordering at least one of the multiple subgroups. ¶0214-0217:the video encoder 200 derives the motion information from the list of candidates… the video encoder 200 may select the motion information from the final list of candidates according to particular criterions. For example, the video encoder may consider a balance between an encoding cost of the index and a template matching cost for determining the motion information); obtaining differences of template matching costs for pairs of two adjacent candidates among the sorted candidates included in the candidate list (¶0182, 0260, 0302-0313: the video decoder 300 may determine a template matching cost associated with each of the plurality of candidates, wherein the template matching cost is determined based on a difference between a set of neighboring samples of the current video block…the video decoder 300 may reorder the plurality of candidates based the template matching cost).
Zhang does not teach determining a minimum value among the differences of the template matching costs; and moving at least one candidate of the pair corresponding to the minimum value to a different position when the minimum value is smaller than a threshold.
Laroche teaches determining a minimum value among the differences of the template matching costs (Page 2: Section 2.1: a candidate is considered as redundant if the cost difference between a candidate and its predecessor is inferior to a lambda value e.g. |D1-D2| < λ, where D1 and D2 are the costs obtained during the first ARMC ordering and λ is the Lagrangian parameter used in the RD criterion at encoder side…Determine the minimum cost difference between a candidate and its predecessor among all candidates in the list); and moving at least one candidate of the pair corresponding to the minimum value to a different position when the minimum value is smaller than a threshold (Page 2: Section 2.1: If this minimum cost difference is inferior to λ, the candidate is considered as redundant and it is moved at a further position in the list).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s image encoding/decoding technique by incorporating the teaching of Laroche as noted above, in order to improve the coding performance of the encoding/decoding process as taught by Laroche (See abstract, conclusion).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the constructing of the candidate list further includes: adding one or more candidates derived from intra block copy mode blocks to the candidate list (¶0139: a merge candidate list may be constructed, which may comprise a predetermined number of candidates (also referred to as merge candidates. ¶0108: the predication unit 202 may include an intra block copy (IBC) unit).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein at least two of a number of candidates added from the first candidates, a number of candidates added from the second candidates, and a number of candidates added from the third candidates are different (¶0164, 0233: the grouping information may be adaptively generated by the video decoder 300 for each video block. For example, it may be predefined that a size of at least one of the plurality of subgroups is determined based on at least one of: a number of available adjacent spatial merge candidates, a number of available spatial temporal motion vector prediction (STMVP) merge candidates, a number of available temporal merge candidates, a number of available non-adjacent spatial merge candidates, a number of available HMVP merge candidates…).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang teaches the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the sorting includes moving a candidate having zero motion information to a last rank in the candidate list and/or excluding the candidate having the zero motion information in an operation of sorting the positions of the candidates (¶0150: the video encoder 200 may construct a plurality of candidates according to the order below: Spatial MVP from spatial neighbour CUs, Temporal MVP from collocated CUs, History-based MVP from an FIFO table, Pairwise average MVP and Zero MVs ).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang in view of Laroche teaches the image decoding method of claim 1. Laroche further teaches wherein the sorting further includes stopping the sorting operation when the minimum value is greater than the threshold (Section 2.1: -If the minimum cost difference is superior or equal to λ, the list is considered diverse enough and the reordering stops). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches the claim as follows:
An image encoding method comprising: constructing a candidate list related to prediction of a current block (¶0138-0140: motion information for a current video block may be generated by a motion estimation unit, for example by comparing one or more reference frames to the current video block. .. In the merge mode, a merge candidate list may be constructed, which may comprise a predetermined number of candidates (also referred to as merge candidates)); generating a prediction block of the current block based on a candidate selected from the candidate list (¶0120: The intra prediction unit 206 may perform intra prediction on the current video block. ¶0140: a best candidate for the current video block may be selected from the constructed merge candidate list, and an index (also referred to as merge index) for the best merge candidate in the list may be encoded into the bitstream); and generating a residual block of the current block based on the prediction block (¶0121: The residual generation unit 207 may generate residual data for the current video block by subtracting (e.g., indicated by the minus sign) the predicted video block (s) of the current video block from the current video block), wherein the constructing of the candidate list includes: adding first candidates derived from spatially neighboring blocks, second candidates derived from temporally neighboring blocks, and third candidates derived from non-neighboring blocks to the candidate list as candidates in a predetermined order (¶0164: the video encoder 200 may also determine whether the initial list of candidates are to be divided into subgroups based on at least one of: a number of available adjacent spatial merge candidates, a number of available spatial temporal motion vector prediction (STMVP) merge candidates, a number of available temporal merge candidates, a number of available non-adjacent spatial merge candidates, a number of available HMVP merge candidates…¶0213: After determining the template matching cost for each candidate in the subgroup, the video encoder 200 may reorder the subgroup of the candidates according to an ascending order of costs); sorting positions of the candidates based on template matching costs (Fig. 6, ¶0213: After determining the template matching cost for each candidate in the subgroup, the video encoder 200 may reorder the subgroup of the candidates according to an ascending order of costs); obtaining differences of template matching costs for pairs of two adjacent candidates among the sorted candidates included in the candidate list (¶0182, 0213: the video encoder 200 may reorder the subgroup of candidates based on a template matching cost associated with each candidate in the subgroup. The template matching cost may be determined based on a difference between a set of neighboring samples (also referred to as “template”) of the current video block and a set of reference samples (also referred to as “reference template”) corresponding to the set of neighboring samples).
Zhang does not explicitly teach determining a minimum value among the differences of the template matching costs; and moving at least one candidate of the pair corresponding to the minimum value to a different position when the minimum value is smaller than a threshold.
Laroche teaches determining a minimum value among the differences of the template matching costs (Page 2: Section 2.1: a candidate is considered as redundant if the cost difference between a candidate and its predecessor is inferior to a lambda value e.g. |D1-D2| < λ, where D1 and D2 are the costs obtained during the first ARMC ordering and λ is the Lagrangian parameter used in the RD criterion at encoder side…Determine the minimum cost difference between a candidate and its predecessor among all candidates in the list); and moving at least one candidate of the pair corresponding to the minimum value to a different position when the minimum value is smaller than a threshold (Page 2: Section 2.1: If this minimum cost difference is inferior to λ, the candidate is considered as redundant and it is moved at a further position in the list).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s image encoding/decoding technique by incorporating the teaching of Laroche as noted above, in order to improve the coding performance of the encoding/decoding process as taught by Laroche (See abstract, conclusion).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang teaches the claim as follows:
A method for providing video data to a video decoding device, the method comprising: encoding the video data into a bitstream (¶0127: entropy encoding unit 214 may perform one or more entropy encoding operations to generate entropy encoded data and output a bitstream that includes the entropy encoded data); and transmitting the bitstream to the video decoding device (¶0102-0103: The encoded video data may be transmitted directly to destination device 120…The destination device 120 may include an I/O interface 126, a video decoder 124), wherein encoding the video data comprises constructing a candidate list related to prediction of a current block (¶0138-0140: motion information for a current video block may be generated by a motion estimation unit, for example by comparing one or more reference frames to the current video block…In the merge mode, a merge candidate list may be constructed, which may comprise a predetermined number of candidates (also referred to as merge candidates)…constructing the merge candidate list: spatial motion vector prediction (MVP) from spatial neighbor coding units (CUs), temporal MVP from collocated CUs, history-based MVP…), generating a prediction block of the current block based on a candidate selected from the candidate list (¶0120: The intra prediction unit 206 may perform intra prediction on the current video block. ¶0140: a best candidate for the current video block may be selected from the constructed merge candidate list, and an index (also referred to as merge index) for the best merge candidate in the list may be encoded into the bitstream ), and generating a residual block of the current block based on the prediction block( ¶0121: The residual generation unit 207 may generate residual data for the current video block by subtracting (e.g., indicated by the minus sign) the predicted video block (s) of the current video block from the current video block), wherein the constructing of the candidate list includes: adding first candidates derived from spatially neighboring blocks, second candidates derived from temporally neighboring blocks, and third candidates derived from non-neighboring blocks to the candidate list as candidates in a predetermined order (¶0164: the video encoder 200 may also determine whether the initial list of candidates are to be divided into subgroups based on at least one of: a number of available adjacent spatial merge candidates, a number of available spatial temporal motion vector prediction (STMVP) merge candidates, a number of available temporal merge candidates, a number of available non-adjacent spatial merge candidates, a number of available HMVP merge candidates…¶0213: After determining the template matching cost for each candidate in the subgroup, the video encoder 200 may reorder the subgroup of the candidates according to an ascending order of costs); sorting positions of the candidates based on template matching costs (Fig. 6, ¶0213: After determining the template matching cost for each candidate in the subgroup, the video encoder 200 may reorder the subgroup of the candidates according to an ascending order of costs); obtaining differences of template matching costs for pairs of two adjacent candidates among the sorted candidates included in the candidate list (¶0182, 0213: the video encoder 200 may reorder the subgroup of candidates based on a template matching cost associated with each candidate in the subgroup. The template matching cost may be determined based on a difference between a set of neighboring samples (also referred to as “template”) of the current video block and a set of reference samples (also referred to as “reference template”) corresponding to the set of neighboring samples).
Zhang does not explicitly teach determining a minimum value among the differences of the template matching costs; and moving at least one candidate of the pair corresponding to the minimum value to a different position when the minimum value is smaller than a threshold.
Laroche teaches determining a minimum value among the differences of the template matching costs (Page 2: Section 2.1: a candidate is considered as redundant if the cost difference between a candidate and its predecessor is inferior to a lambda value e.g. |D1-D2| < λ, where D1 and D2 are the costs obtained during the first ARMC ordering and λ is the Lagrangian parameter used in the RD criterion at encoder side…Determine the minimum cost difference between a candidate and its predecessor among all candidates in the list); and moving at least one candidate of the pair corresponding to the minimum value to a different position when the minimum value is smaller than a threshold (Page 2: Section 2.1: If this minimum cost difference is inferior to λ, the candidate is considered as redundant and it is moved at a further position in the list).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s image encoding/decoding technique by incorporating the teaching of Laroche as noted above, in order to improve the coding performance of the encoding/decoding process as taught by Laroche (See abstract, conclusion).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20220239899 A1) in view of Laroche et al. “On ARMC improvements” Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 26th Meeting, by teleconference, 20–29 April 2022, Document: JVET-Z0103-v1 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20180359483 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Laroche does not explicitly disclose wherein the non-neighboring blocks includes blocks on a plurality of straight lines radiating at intervals of an angle of 22.5 degrees between an angle of 45 degrees and an angle of 225 degrees with reference to the current block in a current picture to which the current block belongs, and blocks on a plurality of straight lines radiating at intervals of an angle of 45 degrees between an angle of 270 degrees and an angle of 360 degrees with reference to a col-block corresponding to the current block in a reference picture.
However, Chen discloses a technique of video encoding using motion vectors of non-adjacent (NA) blocks which can improve prediction efficiency. A non-adjacent spatial motion vector predictors (NA-SMVP) are used to derive motion vector predictor for the current block. The technique includes selecting NA blocks for MVP derivation using a certain pattern. The patten involves a multi-level surrounding NA-blocks where each level is described by a distance parameter. The coder may use co-located blocks of NA-blocs to drive motion vector prediction candidates (See Figs. 16-23, ¶0177, 0182-0186, 0231).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s video encoding/decoding technique to include wherein the non-neighboring blocks includes blocks on a plurality of straight lines radiating at intervals of an angle of 22.5 degrees between an angle of 45 degrees and an angle of 225 degrees with reference to the current block in a current picture to which the current block belongs, and blocks on a plurality of straight lines radiating at intervals of an angle of 45 degrees between an angle of 270 degrees and an angle of 360 degrees with reference to a col-block corresponding to the current block in a reference picture, since such a modification would be a predictable rearrangement of prior art elements according to their established function, which improves the coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Laroche do not explicitly disclose the image decoding method of claim 5, wherein the number of candidates added from the third candidates is greater than the number of candidates added from the second candidates.
However, Chen teaches wherein the number of candidates added from the third candidates is greater than the number of candidates added from the second candidates (¶0182, 0231: a video coder uses more temporal neighboring blocks to derive more TMVP candidates…the video coder considers up to five co-located blocks of the adjacent blocks (including or in addition to the H and C blocks). In another example, the video coder may also consider co-located blocks of NA-blocks (e.g., the 11 NA-blocks (NA.sub.1,1, NA.sub.1,2, NA.sub.1,3, NA.sub.1,4, NA.sub.1,5, NA.sub.1,6, NA.sub.1,7, NA.sub.1,8, NA.sub.1,9, NA.sub.1,10, NA.sub.1,11) in FIG. 16)).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s image encoding/decoding technique by incorporating the teaching of Chen as noted above, in order to improve motion vector prediction, and thereby potentially improve video compression efficiency (Chen: 0055).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the second candidates include as candidates a col-block corresponding to the current block within a first reference picture of a current picture including the current block ( ¶0139: a merge candidate list may be constructed, which may comprise a predetermined number of candidates (also referred to as merge candidates)… temporal MVP from collocated CUs).
Zhang in view of Laroche do not explicitly disclose two or more neighboring blocks adjacent to a below side or a right side of the col- block, and a combination of the col-block and the two or more neighboring blocks.
However, Chen teaches two or more neighboring blocks adjacent to a below side or a right side of the col- block, and a combination of the col-block and the two or more neighboring blocks (Fig. 2, ¶0109-0115: The candidate list may include motion vectors of neighboring blocks that are associated with the same reference index as well as a temporal motion vector predictor which is derived based on the motion parameters (i.e., motion information) of the neighboring block of the co-located block in a temporal reference picture…As shown in FIG. 2, the candidate list for the inter mode includes two spatial motion candidates and one temporal motion candidate…).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s image encoding/decoding technique by incorporating the teaching of Chen as noted above, in order to improve motion vector prediction, and thereby potentially improve video compression efficiency (Chen: 0055).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the constructing of the candidate list further includes: selecting at least one candidate in the candidate list (¶0140, 0235: a best candidate for the current video block may be selected from the constructed merge candidate list).
Zhang in view of Laroche do not explicitly disclose generating fifth candidates based on a plurality of pieces of refined motion information corresponding to a plurality of refined positions spaced apart from an initial position related to first motion information of the selected at least one candidate; calculating a template matching cost for each of the fifth candidates ; and selecting one or more candidates in order from a smallest template matching cost to add to the candidate list.
Chen teaches generating fifth candidates (¶0120: First, a list of MV candidates is generated (FRUC MV candidates) and the candidate which leads to the minimum matching cost is selected as a starting point for further CU level refinement. Then, a local search based on bilateral matching or template matching around the starting point is performed…) based on a plurality of pieces of refined motion information corresponding to a plurality of refined positions spaced apart from an initial position related to first motion information of the selected at least one candidate (Figs. 3-4, 6, ¶0144: In the decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) method, the two motion vectors of the bi-prediction are further refined by a bilateral template matching process); calculating a template matching cost for each of the fifth candidates (¶0120: a local search based on bilateral matching or template matching around the starting point is performed and the MV that results in the minimum matching cost is taken as the MV for the whole CU) ; and selecting one or more candidates in order from a smallest template matching cost to add to the candidate list (¶0145: each of the two reference pictures, the MV that yields the minimum template cost may be considered as the updated MV of that list to replace the original one).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s image encoding/decoding technique by incorporating the teaching of Chen as noted above, in order to improve motion vector prediction, and thereby potentially improve video compression efficiency (Chen: 0055).
Regarding claims 10-11, Zhang in view of Laroche do not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of refined positions include one or more positions on each of a plurality of straight lines radiating from the initial position at predetermined angular intervals, wherein one or more positions on each of a plurality of straight lines includes a plurality of positions at progressively increasing distances from the initial position.
However, Chen discloses a technique of video encoding using motion vectors of non-adjacent (NA) blocks which can improve prediction efficiency. A non-adjacent spatial motion vector predictors (NA-SMVP) are used to derive motion vector predictor for the current block. The technique includes selecting NA blocks for MVP derivation using a certain pattern. The patten involves a multi-level surrounding NA-blocks where each level is described by a distance parameter. The coder may use co-located blocks of NA-blocs to drive motion vector prediction candidates (See Figs. 16-23, ¶0177, 0182-0186, 0231).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s video encoding/decoding technique to include wherein the plurality of refined positions include one or more positions on each of a plurality of straight lines radiating from the initial position at predetermined angular intervals, wherein one or more positions on each of a plurality of straight lines includes a plurality of positions at progressively increasing distances from the initial position, since such a modification would be a predictable rearrangement of prior art elements according to their established function, which improves the coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Laroche do not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of straight lines are two straight lines in direction obtained by adding 45 degrees to angles of a multiple of 90 degrees, and the refined position is a position spaced apart from the initial position by a same first distance in a x direction and a y direction, respectively.
However, Chen discloses a technique of video encoding using motion vectors of non-adjacent (NA) blocks which can improve prediction efficiency. A non-adjacent spatial motion vector predictors (NA-SMVP) are used to derive motion vector predictor for the current block. The technique includes selecting NA blocks for MVP derivation using a certain pattern. The patten involves a multi-level surrounding NA-blocks where each level is described by a distance parameter. The coder may use co-located blocks of NA-blocs to drive motion vector prediction candidates (See Figs. 16-23, ¶0177, 0182-0186, 0231).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s video encoding/decoding technique to include wherein the plurality of straight lines are two straight lines in direction obtained by adding 45 degrees to angles of a multiple of 90 degrees, and the refined position is a position spaced apart from the initial position by a same first distance in a x direction and a y direction, respectively, since such a modification would be a predictable rearrangement of prior art elements according to their established function, which improves the coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang teaches the image decoding method of claim 9, wherein a template which is used for the template matching cost comprises samples of one row above and one column left a block (¶0182-0184: The template matching cost may be determined based on a difference between a set of neighboring samples (also referred to as “template”) of the current video block and a set of reference samples (also referred to as “reference template”) corresponding to the set of neighboring samples. The process of determining the template matching cost will be described with reference to FIGS. 7-8….the set of neighboring samples may comprise neighboring samples 714 left to the current video block 712. In some other embodiments, the set of neighboring samples may comprise neighboring samples 716 above the current video block 712).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20220239899 A1) in view of Laroche et al. “On ARMC improvements” Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 26th Meeting, by teleconference, 20–29 April 2022, Document: JVET-Z0103-v1 and Chen et al. (US 20180359483 A1) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Liao et al. (US 20230115768 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Laroche and Chen do not explicitly disclose wherein a reference picture whose scaling factor is closest to 1 among a plurality of reference pictures for the current picture is selected as the first reference picture is selected.
However, Liao teaches wherein a reference picture whose scaling factor is closest to 1 among a plurality of reference pictures for the current picture is selected as the first reference picture is selected (¶0160: a selected reference picture index is a reference picture index of a collocated picture whose scaling factor (i.e., tb/td as illustrated in FIG. 4) is the closest to 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s image encoding/decoding technique by incorporating the teaching of Liao as noted above, in order to obtain an improved temporal merge candidate technique (Lee:¶0107).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20220239899 A1) in view of Laroche et al. “On ARMC improvements” Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 26th Meeting, by teleconference, 20–29 April 2022, Document: JVET-Z0103-v1 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Robert (US 20200053361 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Laroche do not disclose wherein the constructing of the candidate list includes not adding as a candidate a candidate having a template matching cost greater than a reference value to the candidate list.
Robert teaches wherein the constructing of the candidate list includes not adding as a candidate a candidate having a template matching cost greater than a reference value to the candidate list (¶0046-0047, 0102, 0104: The decision criteria used in an exemplary embodiment according to the present principles may be based on the ratio between matching costs in the template mode…if the smaller normalized cost is greater than the normalized threshold and the ratio between costs is greater than an upper factor, then the candidate with the larger normalized cost is discarded and an uni-prediction is formed by using only the candidate with the smaller cost…).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang’s image encoding/decoding technique by incorporating the teaching of Robert as noted above, in order to improve the compression efficiency while maintaining the computational complexity cost (Robert:¶0105).
The following is the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 20240031595 A1) describes method for diversified merge candidate reordering.
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 NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
