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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the language in the alternative, “[a] method and apparatus for video coding using MVP candidates mode are disclosed,” in the abstract recites legal phraseology and is making the reader go into the Specification. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2020/0068218 A1) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Ko et al. (US 2021/0112268 A1) (hereinafter Ko).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method of video coding using MVP (Motion Vector Prediction) [Abstract, video encoder utilizing motion vector prediction (MVP)], the method comprising:
receiving input data associated with a current block, wherein the input data comprise pixel data for the current block to be encoded at an encoder side or encoded data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side [Paragraph [0147], Fig. 16, input data associated with a current block in a current picture at a video encoder side or a video bitstream corresponding to compressed data including the current block at a video decoder side is received in step 1610];
determining a set of MVP candidates for the current block [Paragraph [0147], Fig. 16, An initial MVP candidate list for the current block is generated in step 1620];
reordering member candidates in the set of MVP candidates to form a reordered set of MVP candidates according to template matching costs associated with the member candidates [Paragraph [0066]-[0068], [0083]-[0105] & [0137], Reordering MVP candidates in MVP list, through calculating template guessing-cost], and wherein each of the template matching costs is measured between first samples in one or more first neighbouring areas of the current block and second samples in one or more second neighbouring areas of a reference block located according to each member candidate in the set of MVP candidates [Paragraph [0090]-[0105], The L-shape template of the reference block has several embodiments. In one embodiment, all pixels of L-shape template are outside the reference block for estimating the cost as shown in FIG. 11A, where the L-shaped area 1112 for the current block 1110 and the L-shaped area 1122 for the reference block 1120 are indicated];
checking a diversity condition for a target MVP candidate pair in the reordered set of MVP candidates, wherein the diversity condition comprises a target matching cost for the target MVP candidate pair being smaller than at least one pre-defined value, or a target MV difference for the target MVP candidate being smaller than a second threshold; if the diversity condition is satisfied, moving one of the target MVP candidate pair to a later position in the reordered set of MVP candidates to form a modified-reordered set of MVP candidates [Paragraph [0034] & [0137], if the order of candidate A is after the order of candidate B in the candidate list and GCost_A for candidate A is better (i.e., smaller cost) than GCost_B for candidate B, as diversity condition and pre-defined value, then the candidate orders of candidates A and B are swapped (i.e., exchanged)]; and
encoding or decoding the current block by using motion information comprising the modified-reordered set of MVP candidates [Paragraph [0147], In step 1650, the current block is encoded at the video encoder side or decoded at the video decoder sider using the reordered MVP candidate list].
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose a target matching cost difference for the target MVP candidate pair being smaller than a first threshold from a first set of at least one pre-defined value or a target MV difference for the target MVP candidate being smaller than a second threshold. Ko teaches a target matching cost difference for the target MVP candidate pair being smaller than a first threshold from a first set of at least one pre-defined value or a target MV difference for the target MVP candidate being smaller than a second threshold [Paragraph [0193], a template matching cost difference between reference block candidates according to the resolution may not be clear when the signaled motion vector differential value is smaller than the preset value].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Ko as above, to increase coding efficiency of a video signal and increase signaling efficiency related to a motion information set of a current block. (Ko, Paragraph [0003]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Chen and Ko disclose the method according to claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses wherein said checking the diversity condition and said moving one of the target MVP candidate pair are repeated till a maximum number of iterations is reached or all MVP candidate pairs are checked [Paragraph [0137], During the sorting process, it repeats the “cost-comparing and swapping” process until no more candidate pairs can be swapped.].
Regarding claim 4, Chen and Ko disclose the method according to claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses wherein the diversity condition corresponds to the target matching cost for the target MVP candidate pair being smaller than at least one pre-defined value [Paragraph [0034] & [0137], if the order of candidate A is after the order of candidate B in the candidate list and GCost_A for candidate A is better (i.e., smaller cost) than GCost_B for candidate B, as diversity condition and pre-defined value, then the candidate orders of candidates A and B are swapped (i.e., exchanged)].
However, Chen does not explicitily disclose target matching cost difference for the target MVP candidate pair being smaller than the first threshold from the first set of said at least one pre-defined value.
Ko teaches target matching cost difference for the target MVP candidate pair being smaller than the first threshold from the first set of said at least one pre-defined value [Paragraph [0193], a template matching cost difference between reference block candidates according to the resolution may not be clear when the signaled motion vector differential value is smaller than the preset value].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Ko as above, to increase coding efficiency of a video signal and increase signaling efficiency related to a motion information set of a current block. (Ko, Paragraph [0003]-[0006]).
Regarding claim 15, apparatus claim 15 is drawn to the apparatus using/ performing the same method as claimed in claim 1. Therefore apparatus claim 15 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-14 are 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.
Claims 2, 5-14 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights