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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to claims 45, 53 and 61 the applicant asserts that Li fails to disclose a second motion shift associated with the neighboring block. Particularly the asserts that the refined SbTMVP is derived from a DVMR process and is not ‘associated with the neighboring block’ (see the 5th paragraph on pg. 6 of the Remarks). The applicant further asserts that Li discloses only one SbTMVP candidate since both the traditional and DMVR refined candidates are derived using the same neighboring motion vector candidate and thus one of skill in the art would not reorder such similar candidates (see the 4th and 6th paragraphs on pg. 6 of the Remarks). The examiner disagrees.
In response to the applicants first argument, the claims require that ‘the second SbTMVP candidate is obtained using a second motion shift associated with the neighboring block of the current block’ (emphasis added). The phrase ‘associated with’ is a broad term merely requiring some connection or relationship between two elements. Li discloses deriving an additional SbTMVP candidate by applying DMVR to a first SbTMVP candidate to determine a second motion shift for the additional candidate (Li par. 140). Li further discloses that DMVR is applied in a range around an initial motion shift (Li pars. 127-128). Thus the refined motion shift derived from DVMR is ‘associated’ with the initial motion shift as the initial motion shift is used as the starting point for the refinement. Further the refined motion shift will be within a certain value of the initial motion shift based on the range of the refinement search and the two are thus ‘associated’ by being within a certain range of values of each other. If the applicant wishes to limit the second SbTMVP candidate to a more defined relationship with the motion shift of the neighboring block then such limitations should be clearly reflected in the claims.
In response to the second argument, the examiner notes that the traditional and refined SbTMVP candidates of Li will have similar motion shifts, however they are not ‘the same’ motion shift asserted by the applicant. As noted above Li discloses that the refined SbTMVP candidate will differ from the traditional candidate by a small refinement shift amount (Li par. 129 note MVdiff representing the difference between the initial and refined motion vectors). Further Li indicates that both the traditional and the DVMR refined candidates may be included in a motion candidate list (Li pars 159-161). The use of both candidates of Li in the same lists suggests that, contrary to the applicants argument, the diversity between the traditional and DMVR refined SbTMVP candidates is sufficient to provide a coding benefit or else both candidates would not be included in the list. Further Li indicates that the SbTMVP candidates may be placed in differing orders (Li par. 161 note second type of SbTMVP candidate may be immediately after the first, or after an affine merge candidate). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further include reordering based on template costs as suggested by Zhang in order to optimize the compression efficiency of the candidate list order.
The applicants arguments are not persuasive.
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) 45-49,51-57 and 59- 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (2021/0058634) in view of Zhang et al (2022/0239899) for the same reasons as stated in the Office Action dated 9/4/2025.
In regard to claim 45 Li discloses a video decoding device, the device comprising:
a processor (Li fig. 16 and pars 183-197 note CPU 1641) configured to:
determine a first subblock temporal motion vector predictor (SbTMVP) candidate and a second SbTMVP candidate, wherein the first SbTMVP candidate obtained using a first motion shift associated with a neighboring block of a current block, and the second SbTMVP candidates is obtained using a second motion shift associated with the neighboring block of the current block (Li par. 159-161 note two first and second SbTMVP candidates, the first without DMVR and the second with DMVR, further note Fig. 8A-C and pars 103-111 note the first, traditional SbTMVP candidate is derived using a motion shift from a collocated block, also note pars. 140 and 159 a second SbTMVP with DMVR which applies an additional motion refinement, or motion shift, to the candidate as described in Fig 10 and pars 125-131);
store the first SbTMVP candidate and the second SbTMVP candidate in a sub-block-based merge list (Li par. 161 note subblock merge candidate list including first and second SbTMVP candidates);
predict a sub-block associated with the current block using an SbTMVP candidate in the reordered sub-block based merge list (Li Figs. 4, 7 and generally pars 44-57 and 91-97 particularly note par. 52 for motion compensated inter prediction and pars 101-103 for merge mode as part of inter prediction).
It is noted that Li does not disclose details of reordering a subblock merge candidate list. However, Zhang discloses video coding in which a sub-block based merge list is reordered according to template matching costs (Zhang par. 540-546 note par. 540 partial or full reordering of the sub-block based merge candidate list, further note Figs 7-8 and pars. 182 and 260 note performing reordering based on template matching costs).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating subblock based candidate merge list reordering as suggested by Zhang in the invention of Li in order to gain the advantage of improved compression efficiency as suggested by Zhang (Zhang par. 217 note reordering motion candidates improves the transmission efficiency of the merge index).
In regard to claim 46 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 45 above. Li further discloses the processor being further configured to store the first SbTMVP candidate and the second SbTMVP candidate in the sub-block based merge list comprises the processor being further configured to store one or more affine candidate in the sub-block based merge list (Li par. 161 note subblock merge candidate list also includes one or more affine candidates such as an inherited affine merge candidate).
In regard to claim 47 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 45 above. Zhang further discloses that reordering the sub-block based merge list based on a lowest template matching cost (Zhang par. 213 note candidates are reordered according to ascending orders of cost, hence a lowest cost is reordered to be first on the candidate list).
In regard to claim 48 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 45 above. Li further discloses that the first or second motion shift is associated with a collocated picture (Li Figs. 8A-C and pars 105-107 note identifying a reference block 861 in collocated picture 860 from which to derive motion shift information for the sub-blocks of the current block as shown in Fig. 8C).
In regard to claim 49 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 45 above. Li further discloses that the first motion shift or the second motion shift is associated with one of a spatial neighbor of the current block, a regular merge list, a non-spatial neighbor of the current block, a history-based motion vector predictor (HVMP), a bi-directional motion vector, or a zero motion vector (Li Figs. 8A-C and pars 105-108 note the motion shifts of the SbTMVP candidate are determined using motion information of a neighboring block such as spatial neighboring block A1).
In regard to claim 51 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 45 above. Li further discloses that the processor is further configured to:
determine a maximum number of seeds to be used for determining the first SbTMVP candidate and the second SbTMVP candidate (Li Fig. 8A par. 105 note up to four spatial neighboring blocks or ‘seeds’ (See Specification par. 149) may be considered for determining SbTMVP candidates); and
determine a plurality of seeds in accordance with a determined maximum number of input candidates (Li Fig. 8A and par. 106 note sequentially checking the plurality of spatial neighboring blocks or ‘seeds’ for motion information).
In regard to claim 52 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 45 above. Zhang further discloses:
obtain a flag indicating usage of a SbTMVP ARMC process (Zhang par. 245 note a reordering flag is obtained from header information , further note pars 540-546 for sub-block merge list reordering); and
based on the flag, reorder the first SbTMVP candidate and the second SbTMVP candidate using the SbTMVP ARMC process (Zhang par. 245 note the flag indicates whether or not adaptive reordering is applied to merge candidate lists, further note pars 540-546 for sub-block merge list reordering).
Claims 53-57 and 59-64 describe a decoding method and an encoding method with process steps that correspond to the processes performed by the decoding device of claims 45-49 and 51-52 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claims 45-49 and 51-52 for the rejection of claims 53-57 and 59-64 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claims 53 and 61 Li further discloses encoding and decoding methods (Li Figs 4, 6 and pars 44-57 and 82-89 for encoding methods and Figs 5, 7 and pars 58-77, 90-97 for decoding methods).
Claim(s) 50 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Zhang as applied to claims 45 and 53 above, and further in view of Chen et al (2020/0068218) or the same reasons as stated in the Office Action dated 9/4/2025.
In regard to claims 50, 58 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 45 and 53 above. It is noted that neither Li nor Zhang disclose comparing template costs with a threshold. However Chen discloses a candidate list reordering process in which a subset of candidates is selected not to be reordered if the template cost of the subset of candidates is within a predetermined threshold (Chen par. 137 note if the ratio of the costs of candidates B and A is less than a threshold then candidates A and B are not reordered).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of incorporating the threshold based reordering of Chen in the subblock based merge list reordering of Li in view of Zhang in order to gain the expected advantage of reducing reordering operations for minor cost differences.
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 JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481