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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to claim 1 the applicant asserts that Chen fails to meet the limitations of the claims because Chen is silent about which expanded merge MV is applied to which reference picture. The examiner disagrees.
First the applicant seems to be arguing specifically against the case where the reference picture to which the first MV is applied is determined implicitly, for which the portion of Chen relating to bi-prediction where both lists point to the same side of the current picture is cited. However, Claim 1 includes alternative language for either implicitly determining whether to apply the expanded first MV implicitly or to apply both first and second expanded merge MVs (emphasis added). In regard to the second alternative, where a first expanded merge MV is applied to the L0 reference picture and the second expanded merge MV is applied to the L1 reference picture, Chen disclose that when each reference picture is on a different side of a current picture an MV associated with a list0 reference picture, or first expanded MV, is applied using the signaled sign MV offset and an MV associated with a list1 reference picture, or second expanded MV, is applied using an opposite value of the signaled sign. Hence in the second case of claim 1 Chen clearly discloses applying a first expanded MV to an L0 reference picture and a second expanded MV to an L1 reference picture. Thus the applicants arguments directed to the second alternative are unpersuasive.
Further, in regard to the first alternative, Chen teaches that in the case of bi-prediction where both references are on a single side of a current picture, both the ‘starting MV’ is expanded using the signaled sign of the MV offset. Chen further discloses in Fig. 10 and par. 128 that the ‘starting MV’ refers both to point 182 in the L0 reference and point 184 in the L1 reference. Hence Chen discloses that when both references are on the same side of the current reference picture an expanded MV is implicitly determined to be applied to both the L0 and L1 reference pictures by modifying the respective ‘starting MVs’ using the signaled MV offset. This is sufficient to meet the first alternative which requires applying a first expanded MV to the L0 or L1 reference picture, since Chen applies an expanded MV to both references. Thus the applicants arguments directed to the first alternative are also unpersuasive.
Even assuming arguendo, that Chen did not disclose applying the expanded MV to both the L0 and L1 reference as noted in the regard to the first alternative above. Chen discloses applying the ‘starting MV’ to a reference picture, and Chen discloses only two reference pictures, L0 and L1, thus Chen must inherently apply the expanded ‘starting MV’ to either L0 or L1 references which is sufficient to meet the requirements of the first alternative above.
If the applicant wishes to limit the claims to include only the first alternative, and apply the expanded MV to only one of the L0 or L1 reference picture and not the other then such limitations should be incorporated into the claims as far as they are supported by the written description of the specification.
In regard to claim 14 the applicant asserts that Chen fails to disclose applying an expanded merge MV to a reference frame associated with a higher weight of BCW. The examiner disagrees. Chen teaches that one of a motion vector of one of an L0 or and L1 reference may be refined and BCW weighting may be used to refine matching with the other of the L1 or L0 references. Hence Chen teaches several alternatives, namely applying an expanded motion vector to either the L0 or L1 reference picture where both have equal weighting, applying an expanded motion vector to the L0 reference picture with high BCW weighting, the L0 reference picture with low weighting, the L1 reference picture with high weighting and the L0 reference picture with low weighting. Hence Chen discloses that the expanded motion vector is applied coincidentally to the L0 and L1 reference pictures when those pictures have high BCW weighting as determined by the refinement process.
The examiner notes that Chen does not teach determining the reference with high BCW and then applying the expanded MV to that reference based on the determination. However, claim 14 does not presently require steps of determining BCW weights associated with the references and selecting the determined reference for application of the expanded motion vector, thus the coincidental application of the refined MV to the L0 or L1 reference that happens to have a higher BCW weight is sufficient to meet the limitations of claim 14.
The applicant does not raise additional novel arguments in regard to the remainder of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (2022/0210438) for the same reasons as set forth in the Office action dated 10/1/2025.
In regard to claim 1 Chen discloses a method of video coding using merge with motion vector difference (MMVD) mode (Chen Figs. 11-12 and pars 178—222 for coding, also note Fig. 10 and par. 128-129 for MMVD mode), the method comprising:
receiving input data associated with a current block coded in a bi-prediction mode, 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 (Chen Figs. 11 note input to video memory 230 as input data, also note Fig. 12 encoded video bitstream as input data finally note par. 129 video may be coded in bi-prediction mode);
determining a first expanded merge motion vector (MV) for the current block, wherein the first expanded merge MV is derived by adding a first selected offset from the first set of offsets to a base MV (Chen pars. 128-129 note deriving a final (first expanded) motion vector by adding MV offset indicated by distance and sign indexes), and
wherein whether the first expanded merge MV is applied to a first reference picture in reference list 0 (L0) or a second reference picture in reference list 1 (L1) is determined implicitly by the decoder side, or the first expanded merge MV is applied to the second reference picture in the L1 (Chen par. 129 note for bi-predicted blocks the signaled offset and sign are always applied to the list 0 candidate to generate the final (first expanded) L0 MV, the same signaled offset and sign are also determined implicitly to apply to the list 1 candidate to generate the final (first expanded) L1 MV in the case that the list 1 reference when the POC of the list 0 and list 1 references are both larger or both smaller than the POC of the current picture, an offset with opposite sign is applied when one POC of each list is on either side of the POC of the current block); and
encoding or decoding the current block by using motion information comprising the first expanded merge MV (Chen Figs 11-12 and pars 178-222 for details of coding, particularly note pars 188-195 and 208 for descriptions of coding using motion information).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chen further discloses that the first expanded merge MV is applied to the first reference picture in the L0 or the L1 is determined according to a matching cost measured between one or more first neighboring areas of the current block and one or more second neighboring areas of a first reference block in the L0 or the L1 (Chen pars. 175-176 note using a template matching (TM) technique to determine which one of two base MMVD vectors to be used to generate MMVD candidates based upon a matching cost, further note pars 128-129 the signaled offset and sign (first expanded merge MV) are applied to the list 0 reference for uni-predictive block that reference list 0 and bi-predictive blocks, also note that the signaled offset and sign (first expanded merge MV) are applied to the list 1 motion vector for uni-predictive blocks that reference list 1 and bi-predictive blocks where both the list 0 and 1 references have POCs greater or less than the POC of the current block, hence the particular base vector determined according to matching cost determines whether the signaled offset and sign (first expanded merge MV) are applied to the L0 and/or L1 motion vectors, finally note Fig. 5 and pars 102-104 showing the neighboring area used to determine matching costs).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 2 above. Chen further discloses that said one or more first neighboring areas of the current block comprise a first top neighboring area and a first left neighboring area of the current block and said one or more second neighboring areas of the first reference block comprise a second top neighboring area and a second left neighboring area of the first reference block (Chen Fig. 5 and pars 102-104 note left and above areas of the current frame 150 and the corresponding left and above areas of reference frame 154).
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 2 above. Chen further discloses that the matching cost is calculated only for the first reference picture in the L0 and is disregarded for the first reference picture in the L1 if the expanded merge MV is applied to the first reference picture in the L0 (Chen pars. 137-138 note TM based motion refinement may be applied to only the L0 reference picture, hence costs will only be computed for the L0 reference picture).
In regard to claim 5 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chen further discloses one or more syntaxes related to a motion vector difference (MVD) between the first expanded merge MV and the based MV is signaled at the encoder side or parsed at the decoder side (Chen pars 127-129 note distance and direction index indicating values which are applied to base MVs to generate expanded MVs).
Claims 13 relates to an apparatus comprising electronics or processors that implement process steps corresponding to the method of claim 1 above. Refer to the statements made in the regards of claim 1 above for the rejection of claim 13 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claim 13 Chen further discloses an apparatus (Chen figs. 11-12).
In regard to claim 14 Chen discloses a method of video coding using merge with motion vector difference (MMVD) mode (Chen Figs. 11-12 and pars 178—222 for coding, also note Fig. 10 and par. 128-129 for MMVD mode), the method comprising:
receiving input data associated with a current block coded in a bi-prediction mode, 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 (Chen Figs. 11 note input to video memory 230 as input data, also note Fig. 12 encoded video bitstream as input data finally note par. 129 video may be coded in bi-prediction mode);
determining an expanded merge motion vector (MV) for the current block, wherein the expanded merge MV is derived by adding a first selected offset from the first set of offsets to a base MV and the selected offset is indicating by a MMVD signaled at the encoder side or parsed at the decoder side (Chen pars. 128-129 note deriving a final (expanded) motion vector by adding MV offset indicated by distance and sign indexes, the distance and sign indexes signaled in a bitstream as part of an MMVD coding mode), and
applying the expanded merge MV to a reference frame associated with a higher weight of bi-prediction with CU-level weight (BCW) (Chen pars 127-129 note applying the expanded merge MV to the list 0 reference picture, further note pars 105, 118 and 138-139 note BCW weights are determined according to cost, hence the list0 reference picture may be associated with the higher BCW weight); and
encoding or decoding the current block by using motion information comprising the expanded merge MV (Chen Figs 11-12 and pars 178-222 for details of coding, particularly note pars 188-195 and 208 for descriptions of coding using motion information).
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) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Ko et al (2022/0279162) for the same reasons as set forth in the Office action dated 10/1/2025.
In regard to claims 6 and 7 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 5 above. Chen discloses determining an L0 reference picture by applying a first expanded merge MV, and deriving an L1 motion vector by adapting parameters for the L0 reference picture to generate a MVD signal for the L1 reference picture (Chen pars 127-129) It is noted that Chen does not disclose details of using a scaled and/or clipped MVD signal for the L1 reference picture.
However Ko discloses generating a scaled and clipped MVD value for a second reference picture using information signaled at the encoder side or parsed at the decoder side (Ko Fig. 39 and par. 525-529 note determining the MVD for either the L1 or L0 reference picture by scaling and clipping the MVD of the other of the L0 or L1 reference picture, further note both MVDs are determined based on information signaled in the bitstream).
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 scaling and clipping of MVD values as taught by Ko in the MMVD process of Chen in order to account variations in POC differences between
the reference frames and the current frame a suggested by Ko (Ko pars 525-526 note scaling based on POC differences between the current frame and the respective reference frames)
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Li et al (2022/0353500) for the same reasons as set forth in the Office action dated 10/1/2025.
In regard to claim 8 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. It is noted that Chen does not disclose a second offset for determining the second expanded merge MV.
However, Li discloses performing MMVD in a geometric partitioning mode which includes generating a second expanded merge MV by adding a second selected offset from a second set of offsets to the base MV (Li pars 117-124 note for a CU coded in geometric partitioning mode (GPM) a first and second MmvdDistance parameter is signaled for the L0 and L1 reference frames of the first and second GPM partitions respectively, further note par. 124 a second MmvdOffset is determined for the second reference picture using the second MmvdDistance value).
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 a second offset as disclosed by Li in the invention of Chen in order to perform MMVD on GPM coded blocks as suggested by Li (Li pars 117-120).
In regard to claim 9 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 above. Chen further discloses that the M first expanded merge MV candidates are selected and N second expanded merge MV candidates corresponding to a portion of a set of second expanded merge MV candidates are selected according to matching costs associated with the set of first expanded merge MV candidates and the set of second expanded merge MV candidates, and wherein M and N are positive integers
(Chen pars. 175-176 note using a template matching (TM) technique to determine which one of two base MMVD vectors to be used to generate MMVD candidates based upon a matching cost, further note pars 127-129 MMVD candidates maybe unpredicted or bi-predicted, hence Chen discloses selecting M first and N second expanded merge MV candidates for determining matching costs where M and N are both equal to values of 0-2 depending upon whether each base candidate in the merge list is bi-predicted or uni-predicted from the list 0 or list 1 reference picture).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Claim 10, in addition to the requirements of claim 9 form which it depends, requires determining MxN joint expanded merge MV candidates which are reordered according to matching costs.
The closest art is Chen in view of Li. Li discloses using first and second offset information for determining first and second expanded MVs. Chen teaches performing template matching on two base MV candidates which may be uni or bi predicted, and selecting a base MV candidate to be used in an MMVD process according to a lowest template matching cost. However neither Chen nor Li disclose determining a set of MxN joint expanded merge MV candidates which are reordered according to matching costs as required by claim 10.
Claims 11 and 12 depend form claim 19 and are objected to for the same reasons.
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
Prosecution Insights