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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 11-13 have been added. Claims 8-13 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 03/02/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-7, filed 05/28/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8-10 under Chen et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2023/0135378 A1] have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Chen et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2023/0135378 A1] in view of DENG et al. (Hereafter, “Deng”) [US 2024/0388694 A1].
On pages 4-7 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant argues that Chen does not teach the selection of the values via template matching instead of being signaled.
However, in regards to the current rejection below, Chen and Deng both disclose various examples that are used for signalling the BCW index and examples where the index is not signalled. It is known in Chen and Deng that possible alternative ways of deriving the weighted candidates are available. Thus, the examples in both Chen and Deng describe not signalling the BCW index which would be considered an alternative (“instead of”) clause for the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the different examples used in Chen and Deng can be alternatives to the signalling of the index.
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.
Claim(s) 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2023/0135378 A1] in view of DENG et al. (Hereafter, “Deng”) [US 2024/0388694 A1].
In regards to claim 8, Chen discloses a method of applying template matching (TM) in video coding or decoding, the method comprising one or more of: combining intra sub-partition mode (ISP) with TM, wherein each sub-partition of a predicted block has its own intra mode, determined by applying TM to refine a shared intra mode among all sub-partitions of the predicted block using either neighboring angular intra prediction modes or most probable mode (MPM) modes; combining interpolation filtering in intra prediction with TM, wherein TM is applied to determine what interpolation filter to apply without explicitly signaling its identity index; combining block partitioning with TM, wherein, for a given coded unit (CU), first, TM is applied to determine a best integer motion vector (MV); and subsequently, the block partition from the best MV is copied as an inferred partition for a current block; combining BCW (bi-prediction with CU level weights) with TM, wherein instead of signaling weighting values candidates, the values candidates are selected via TM ([0191] In an example, the BCW candidate weight (e.g., 5/8) corresponding to the smallest TM cost (e.g., TM3) is selected as the BCW weight to be used to code the current block (1902), such as shown in Eq. 7 below. In an example, the BCW index (e.g., bcwIdx) is not signaled, and thus reducing signaling cost of the BCW mode.); combining adaptive MV resolution with TM, wherein instead of explicit signaling MV resolution, the MV resolution is inferred using TM, the inferring comprising: applying TM using two or more MV resolutions, and selecting, as a preferred resolution, the MV resolution among the two or MV resolutions that provides the best MV.
Deng discloses a method of applying template matching (TM) in video coding or decoding, the method comprising one or more of: combining intra sub-partition mode (ISP) with TM, wherein each sub-partition of a predicted block has its own intra mode, determined by applying TM to refine a shared intra mode among all sub-partitions of the predicted block using either neighboring angular intra prediction modes or most probable mode (MPM) modes; combining interpolation filtering in intra prediction with TM, wherein TM is applied to determine what interpolation filter to apply without explicitly signaling its identity index; combining block partitioning with TM, wherein, for a given coded unit (CU), first, TM is applied to determine a best integer motion vector (MV); and subsequently, the block partition from the best MV is copied as an inferred partition for a current block; combining BCW (bi-prediction with CU level weights) with TM, wherein instead of signaling weighting values candidates, the values candidates are selected via TM ([0488] f. For example, the weight(s) used for a BCW coded video unit may be determined by a decoder derived method. [0489] i. For example, one BCW weight may be determined based on the template matching cost (e.g., the BCW weight which results in minimum template matching cost may be selected). [0490] 1. For example, in such case, the BCW index may not be signalled for the video unit.); combining adaptive MV resolution with TM, wherein instead of explicit signaling MV resolution, the MV resolution is inferred using TM, the inferring comprising: applying TM using two or more MV resolutions, and selecting, as a preferred resolution, the MV resolution among the two or MV resolutions that provides the best MV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the use of template matching at the decoder for a BCW coded video block/unit wherein the BCW weight which results in minimum template matching cost may be selected and the BCW index may not be signalled as taught by Deng in order to preserve coding benefit while reducing latency, memory, and hardware serialization [See Deng].
Claim 9 lists all the same elements of claim 8, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Claim 10 lists all the same elements of claim 8, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 8 applies equally as well to claim 10.
In regards to claim 11, the limitations of claim 8 have been addressed. Deng discloses wherein, instead of explicit signaling, an intra mode, an interpolation filter, block partition, bi-prediction weighting value, or MV resolution is inferred using TM at a decoder, without explicitly signaling an identity index or parameter value corresponding to the intra mode, interpolation filter, block partition, bi-prediction weighting value, or MV resolution in a bitstream ([0488] f. For example, the weight(s) used for a BCW coded video unit may be determined by a decoder derived method. [0489] i. For example, one BCW weight may be determined based on the template matching cost (e.g., the BCW weight which results in minimum template matching cost may be selected). [0490] 1. For example, in such case, the BCW index may not be signalled for the video unit.).
In regards to claim 12, the limitations of claim 8 have been addressed. Deng discloses wherein TM is used as a substitute for explicit signaling, such that no index, flag, or parameter corresponding to (i) an intra mode, (ii) an interpolation filter, (iii) a block partition structure, (iv) a bi-prediction weighting value, or (v) an MV resolution is explicitly transmitted in a bitstream, and the respective intra mode, interpolation filter, block partition structure, bi-prediction weighting value, or MV resolution is inferred solely based on TM results derived at a decoder ([0488] f. For example, the weight(s) used for a BCW coded video unit may be determined by a decoder derived method. [0489] i. For example, one BCW weight may be determined based on the template matching cost (e.g., the BCW weight which results in minimum template matching cost may be selected). [0490] 1. For example, in such case, the BCW index may not be signalled for the video unit.).
In regards to claim 13, the limitations of claim 8 have been addressed. Deng discloses wherein a bitstream transmitted to a decoder lacks any syntax element identifying an intra mode, an interpolation filter, a block partition structure, a bi-prediction weighting value, or an MV resolution for the current block, and wherein the intra mode, interpolation filter, block partition structure, bi-prediction weighting value, or MV resolution is derived at the decoder solely based on TM results ([0488] f. For example, the weight(s) used for a BCW coded video unit may be determined by a decoder derived method. [0489] i. For example, one BCW weight may be determined based on the template matching cost (e.g., the BCW weight which results in minimum template matching cost may be selected). [0490] 1. For example, in such case, the BCW index may not be signalled for the video unit.).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights