DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on October 25, 2024. Claims 1 – 18 are pending.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority based on U.S. provisional applications 63/336,378 filed on April 29, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on October 25, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because it includes the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description,
Fig. 5, Item 510
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 – 18 are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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 - 6, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 2020/0213612 A1) referred to as LIU hereinafter, and in view of YAN et al. (US 2024/0305786 A1) referred to as YAN hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, LIU teaches a method of video coding (Par. [0004] Devices, systems and methods related to digital video coding, and specifically, to motion vector predictor derivation and signaling for affine mode with adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR)), the method comprising:
receiving input data associated with a current block (Par. [0442], The system 2900 may include input 2902 for receiving video content), wherein the input data comprise pixel data for the current block to be encoded (Par. [0442], The video content may be received in a raw or uncompressed format, e.g., 8 or 10 bit multi-component pixel values) at an encoder side (Par. [0443] the coding tools or operations are used at an encoder and corresponding decoding tools or operations that reverse the results of the coding will be performed by a decoder) or encoded data associated with the current block to be decoded (Par. [0442], The video content may be in a compressed or encoded format) at a decoder side (Par. [0443] the coding tools or operations are used at an encoder and corresponding decoding tools or operations that reverse the results of the coding will be performed by a decoder), and wherein the current block is coded using uni-prediction or bi-prediction (Par. [0158], In the template matching merge mode, the encoder can choose among uni-prediction from list0, uni-prediction from list1, or bi-prediction for a CU);
determining at least one of a first MVP (Motion Vector Predictor) and a second MVP for the current block (Par. [0216], A motion vector predictor (e.g., inherited from a neighboring block MV) is denoted by MVPred(MVPred.sub.X, MVPred.sub.Y), Par. [0115], FIG. 15 shows an example of an affine motion field of a block 1400 described by two control point motion vectors V.sub.0 (i.e. first MVP) and V.sub.1 (i.e. second MVP)));
determining at least one of a first MVD (MV Difference) associated with the first MVP and a second MVD associated with the second MVP from at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates (As illustrated in Fig. 28, MVD0 and MVD1 (i.e. first and second MVD) from list 0 and list 1 candidates, Par. [0144], the list size is set to two (i.e. pre-defined set of candidates)) based on matching costs (Par. [0138] The PMMVD mode is a special merge mode based on the Frame-Rate Up Conversion (FRUC) method, Par. [0140], the decision on whether using FRUC merge mode for a CU is based on RD cost selection as done for normal merge candidate. For example, multiple matching modes (e.g., bilateral matching and template matching) are checked for a CU by using RD cost selection. The one leading to the minimal cost is further compared to other CU modes. If a FRUC matching mode is the most efficient one, FRUC flag is set to true for the CU and the related matching mode is used.), comprising at least one of the following:
in response to the current block being coded using the uni-prediction (Par. [0158]-[0164] The selection can be based on a template matching cost as follows: if cost0<=cost1 uni-prediction from list0 is used; Otherwise, uni-prediction from list1 is used), each of the matching costs is determined between one or more neighbouring samples of the current block and one or more predicted samples from one or more corresponding neighbouring samples of each reference block pointed by a uni-prediction candidate MV based on a candidate of said at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates and one of the first MVP and the second MVP;
in response to the current block being coded using the bi-prediction (Par. [0158]-[0160], The selection can be based on a template matching cost as follows: If costBi<=factor*min (cost0, cost1) Par. [0160] bi-prediction is used), the matching costs is determined between one or more neighbouring samples of the current block and one or more predicted samples from one or more corresponding neighbouring samples of each reference block pointed by a bi-prediction candidate MV (Par. [0183] In DMVR, a bilateral template is generated as the weighted combination of the two prediction blocks, from the initial MV0 of list0 (i.e. first MVP) and MV1 of list1 (i.e. second MVP), respectively, as shown in FIG. 25. The template matching operation consists of calculating cost measures between the generated template (i.e. neighboring sample of current block) and the sample region (around the initial prediction block) in the reference picture (i.e. neighboring sample of reference block). For each of the two reference pictures, the MV that yields the minimum template cost is considered as the updated MV of that list to replace the original one. Nine MV candidates are searched for each list. The nine MV candidates include the original MV and 8 surrounding MVs with one luma sample offset to the original MV in either the horizontal or vertical direction, or both. The two new MVs, i.e., MV0′ and MV1′ as shown in FIG. 25, are used for generating the final bi-prediction results); and
encoding or decoding the current block by using motion information comprising at least one of a first final MV associated with the first MVP and the first MVD, and a second final MV associated with the second MVP and the second MVD (Par. [0183] The two new MVs (i.e. first and second final MV), i.e., MV0′ and MV1′ as shown in FIG. 25, are used for generating the final bi-prediction results).
LIU does not specifically teach each of the matching costs is determined by a bi-prediction candidate MV. Therefore, LIU fails to explicitly teach determining at least one of a first MVD (MV Difference) associated with the first MVP and a second MVD associated with the second MVP from at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates based on matching costs, comprising at least one of the following: in response to the current block being coded using the bi-prediction, each of the matching costs is determined between one or more neighbouring samples of the current block and one or more predicted samples from one or more corresponding neighbouring samples of each reference block pointed by a bi-prediction candidate MV based on at least the first MVP, the second MVP, and a candidate of said at least one pre-defined set of candidates.
However, YAN teaches determining at least one of a first MVD (MV Difference) associated with the first MVP and a second MVD associated with the second MVP from at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates (As illustrated in Fig. 5A, MVdiff and -MVdiff (i.e. first and second MVD), MV0 MV1 (i.e. first and second MVP), 1st reference frame in list 0, 2nd reference frame in list 1 (i.e. candidates), Par. [0069], The video decoder 30 may construct the reference frame lists, e.g., List 0 and List 1, using default construction techniques (i.e. pre-defined candidate list) based on reference frames stored in the DPB 92) based on matching costs (Par. [0147], the processor may derive the first MVD for the video block based on a first MVD candidate associated with the minimum matching cost among the plurality of matching costs, where a MVD can be calculated to be a difference between the motion vector and the motion vector predictor (e.g., MVD=the motion vector−the motion vector predictor) see Par. [0105]), in response to the current block being coded using the bi-prediction (Par. [0102], when the video block is coded with bi-prediction using the AMVP mode, the bilateral matching technique disclosed herein can be applied to derive one or more MVDs. Par. [0140] In the second exemplary case where the video block is coded using the bi-prediction scheme, the processor may perform MVD prediction 618 to determine one or more MVDs for the video block using the bilateral matching technique), each of the matching costs is determined (Par. [0146], for each pair of the first MVD candidates and the second MVD candidates, the processor may determine a matching cost) between one or more neighbouring samples of the current block and one or more predicted samples from one or more corresponding neighbouring samples of each reference block (Fig. 5B, Par. [0094], template matching technique is a decoder-side MV derivation method configured to refine motion information of a current video block (e.g., a current CU) by finding the closest match between a template in a current video frame and a reference region in a reference frame) pointed by a bi-prediction candidate MV (Fig. 5B, initial MV, Par. [0094], a template can include a top neighboring block and/or a left neighbouring block of the current CU in the current video frame. A reference region of the template may have the same size as the template and may include a first reference block and/or a second reference block determined by a motion vector candidate from a reference frame, where the template matching technique can be cascaded with a bilateral matching (i.e. bi-prediction) process in merge modes) based on at least the first MVP, the second MVP, and a candidate of said at least one pre-defined set of candidates (Par. [0149], MVD prediction 618 under the bi-prediction scheme, the one or more MVDs to be derived (i.e. candidate) on the decoder side may include a pair of MVDs, including (a) the first MVD for the first motion vector associated with the first reference frame list and (b) the second MVD for the second motion vector associated with the second reference frame list).
References LIU and YAN are considered to be analogous art because they both provide a guide device to aid the visually impaired. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying determining each matching costs by bi-prediction candidate MV as suggested by YAN in the invention of LIU in order to check with the bilateral matching technique which leads to the minimum matching cost being selected for the derivation of the first MVD and the second MVD on the decoder side (See YAN, Par. [0149]).
Regarding Claim 2, LIU in view of YAN teaches Claim 1. LIU further teaches wherein in response to the current block being coded using the uni-prediction (the alternative limitation “in response to the current block being coded using the uni-prediction” is not required, as Claim 1 recites “determining at least one of a first MVD (MV Difference)… comprising at least one of the following”), the uni-prediction candidate MV (Par. [0158], In the template matching merge mode, the encoder can choose among uni-prediction from list0, uni-prediction from list1, or bi-prediction for a CU) achieving a smallest matching cost is selected to derive said at least one of the first final MV and the second final MV (Par. [0140]-[0141], multiple matching modes (e.g., bilateral matching and template matching (i.e. uni-prediction)) are checked for a CU by using RD cost selection. A list of MV candidates is generated and the candidate that leads to the minimum (i.e. smallest) matching cost is selected as the starting point for further CU level refinement. Then a local search based on bilateral matching or template matching around the starting point is performed. The MV results in the minimum matching cost is taken as the MV for the whole CU).
Regarding Claim 3, LIU in view of YAN teaches Claim 1. LIU further teaches wherein in response to the current block being coded using the bi-prediction (Par. [0158]-[0160], The selection can be based on a template matching cost as follows: If costBi<=factor*min (cost0, cost1) [0160] bi-prediction is used), the bi-prediction candidate MV achieving a smallest matching cost is selected to derive said at least one of the first final MV and the second final MV (Par. [0183] In DMVR, a bilateral template is generated as the weighted combination of the two prediction blocks, from the initial MV0 of list0 (i.e. first MVP) and MV1 of list1 (i.e. second MVP), respectively, as shown in FIG. 25. The template matching operation consists of calculating cost measures between the generated template and the sample region (around the initial prediction block) in the reference picture. For each of the two reference pictures, the MV that yields the minimum template cost (i.e. smallest matching cost) is considered as the updated MV of that list to replace the original one).
Regarding Claim 4, LIU in view of YAN teaches Claim 1. LIU further teaches wherein in response to the current block being coded using the uni-prediction (the alternative limitation “in response to the current block being coded using the uni-prediction” is not required, as Claim 1 recites “determining at least one of a first MVD (MV Difference)… comprising at least one of the following”) (Par. [0158], In the template matching merge mode, the encoder can choose among uni-prediction from list0, uni-prediction from list1, or bi-prediction for a CU), said at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates corresponds to only one pre-defined set of MVD candidates used for deriving the uni-prediction candidate MV in list 0 or list 1 (Par. [0187]-[0188] The forward reference picture in reference picture list 0 which is nearest (i.e. only one of set) to the current picture is searched. If found, RefIdxSymL0 is set equal to the reference index of the forward picture. The backward reference picture in reference picture list 1 which is nearest (i.e. only one of set) to the current picture is searched. If found, RefIdxSymL1 is set equal to the reference index of the backward picture).
Regarding Claim 5, LIU in view of YAN teaches Claim 1. LIU further teaches wherein in response to the current block being coded using the bi-prediction (Par. [0186], in slice level, variables BiDirPredFlag), said at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates corresponds to only one pre-defined set of MVD candidates used for deriving the bi-prediction candidate MV (Par. [0187]-[0188] The forward reference picture in reference picture list 0 which is nearest (i.e. only one of set) to the current picture is searched. If found, RefIdxSymL0 is set equal to the reference index of the forward picture. The backward reference picture in reference picture list 1 which is nearest (i.e. only one of set) to the current picture is searched. If found, RefIdxSymL1 is set equal to the reference index of the backward picture).
Regarding Claim 6, LIU in view of YAN teaches Claim 1. LIU further teaches wherein in response to the current block being coded using the bi-prediction (Par. [0186], in slice level, variables BiDirPredFlag), said at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates corresponds to two separate pre-defined sets of MVD candidates used for deriving list 0 MV in the bi-prediction candidate MV and list 1 MV in the bi-prediction candidate MV respectively (Par. [0187]-[0188] The forward reference picture in reference picture list 0 which is nearest to the current picture is searched. If found, RefIdxSymL0 is set equal to the reference index of the forward picture (i.e. used for list 0 MV). The backward reference picture in reference picture list 1 which is nearest to the current picture is searched. If found, RefIdxSymL1 is set equal to the reference index of the backward picture (i.e. used for list 1 MV)).
Regarding Claim 17, LIU in view of YAN teaches Claim 1. LIU further teaches wherein the matching costs correspond to distortion between said one or more neighbouring samples of the current block and one or more corresponding neighbouring sample of each reference block (Par. [0182], he bilateral template matching applied in the decoder to perform a distortion-based search between a bilateral template and the reconstruction samples in the reference pictures in order to obtain a refined MV without transmission of additional motion information), and wherein the distortion is measured using one or more metrics comprising SATD, SAD, MSE or SSE (Par. [0269] Denote RD cost (real RD cost, or SATD/SSE/SAD cost plus rough bits cost) of affine mode and AMVP mode as affineCosti and amvpCosti for IMV=i, where in i=0, 1 or 2).
Regarding Claim 18, LIU teaches an apparatus for video coding (Par. [0004] Devices, systems and methods related to digital video coding, and specifically, to motion vector predictor derivation and signaling for affine mode with adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR)), the apparatus comprising one or more electronics or processors (Fig. 27, Par. [0441], The apparatus 2700 may be used to implement one or more of the methods described herein. The apparatus 2700 may be embodied in a smartphone, tablet, computer, Internet of Things (IoT) receiver, and so on. The apparatus 2700 may include one or more processors 2702, one or more memories 2704 and video processing hardware 2706) arranged to:
receive input data associated with a current block (Par. [0442], The system 2900 may include input 2902 for receiving video content), wherein the input data comprise pixel data for the current block to be encoded (Par. [0442], The video content may be received in a raw or uncompressed format, e.g., 8 or 10 bit multi-component pixel values) at an encoder side (Par. [0443] the coding tools or operations are used at an encoder and corresponding decoding tools or operations that reverse the results of the coding will be performed by a decoder) or encoded data associated with the current block to be decoded (Par. [0442], The video content may be in a compressed or encoded format) at a decoder side (Par. [0443] the coding tools or operations are used at an encoder and corresponding decoding tools or operations that reverse the results of the coding will be performed by a decoder), and wherein the current block is coded using uni-prediction or bi-prediction (Par. [0158], In the template matching merge mode, the encoder can choose among uni-prediction from list0, uni-prediction from list1, or bi-prediction for a CU);
determine at least one of a first MVP (Motion Vector Predictor) and a second MVP for the current block (Par. [0216], A motion vector predictor (e.g., inherited from a neighboring block MV) is denoted by MVPred(MVPred.sub.X, MVPred.sub.Y), Par. [0115], FIG. 15 shows an example of an affine motion field of a block 1400 described by two control point motion vectors V.sub.0 (i.e. first MVP) and V.sub.1 (i.e. second MVP)));
determine at least one of a first MVD (MV Difference) associated with the first MVP and a second MVD associated with the second MVP from at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates (As illustrated in Fig. 28, MVD0 and MVD1 (i.e. first and second MVD) from list 0 and list 1 candidates, Par. [0144], the list size is set to two (i.e. pre-defined set of candidates)) based on matching costs (Par. [0138] The PMMVD mode is a special merge mode based on the Frame-Rate Up Conversion (FRUC) method, Par. [0140], the decision on whether using FRUC merge mode for a CU is based on RD cost selection as done for normal merge candidate. For example, multiple matching modes (e.g., bilateral matching and template matching) are checked for a CU by using RD cost selection. The one leading to the minimal cost is further compared to other CU modes. If a FRUC matching mode is the most efficient one, FRUC flag is set to true for the CU and the related matching mode is used.), comprising at least one of the following:
in response to the current block being coded using the uni-prediction (Par. [0158]-[0164] The selection can be based on a template matching cost as follows: if cost0<=cost1 uni-prediction from list0 is used; Otherwise, uni-prediction from list1 is used), each of the matching costs is determined between one or more neighbouring samples of the current block and one or more predicted samples from one or more corresponding neighbouring samples of each reference block pointed by a uni-prediction candidate MV based on a candidate of said at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates and one of the first MVP and the second MVP;
in response to the current block being coded using the bi-prediction (Par. [0158]-[0160], The selection can be based on a template matching cost as follows: If costBi<=factor*min (cost0, cost1) [0160] bi-prediction is used), the matching costs is determined between one or more neighbouring samples of the current block and one or more predicted samples from one or more corresponding neighbouring samples of each reference block pointed by a bi-prediction candidate MV (Par. [0183] In DMVR, a bilateral template is generated as the weighted combination of the two prediction blocks, from the initial MV0 of list0 (i.e. first MVP) and MV1 of list1 (i.e. second MVP), respectively, as shown in FIG. 25. The template matching operation consists of calculating cost measures between the generated template (i.e. neighboring sample of current block) and the sample region (around the initial prediction block) in the reference picture (i.e. neighboring sample of reference block). For each of the two reference pictures, the MV that yields the minimum template cost is considered as the updated MV of that list to replace the original one. Nine MV candidates are searched for each list. The nine MV candidates include the original MV and 8 surrounding MVs with one luma sample offset to the original MV in either the horizontal or vertical direction, or both. The two new MVs, i.e., MV0′ and MV1′ as shown in FIG. 25, are used for generating the final bi-prediction results); and
encode or decode the current block by using motion information comprising at least one of a first final MV associated with the first MVP and the first MVD, and a second final MV associated with the second MVP and the second MVD (Par. [0183] The two new MVs (i.e. first and second final MV), i.e., MV0′ and MV1′ as shown in FIG. 25, are used for generating the final bi-prediction results).
LIU does not specifically teach each of the matching costs is determined by a bi-prediction candidate MV. Therefore, LIU fails to explicitly teach determining at least one of a first MVD (MV Difference) associated with the first MVP and a second MVD associated with the second MVP from at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates based on matching costs, comprising at least one of the following: in response to the current block being coded using the bi-prediction, each of the matching costs is determined between one or more neighbouring samples of the current block and one or more predicted samples from one or more corresponding neighbouring samples of each reference block pointed by a bi-prediction candidate MV based on at least the first MVP, the second MVP, and a candidate of said at least one pre-defined set of candidates.
However, YAN teaches determining at least one of a first MVD (MV Difference) associated with the first MVP and a second MVD associated with the second MVP from at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates (As illustrated in Fig. 5A, MVdiff and -MVdiff (i.e. first and second MVD), MV0 MV1 (i.e. first and second MVP), 1st reference frame in list 0, 2nd reference frame in list 1 (i.e. candidates), Par. [0069], The video decoder 30 may construct the reference frame lists, e.g., List 0 and List 1, using default construction techniques (i.e. pre-defined candidate list) based on reference frames stored in the DPB 92) based on matching costs (Par. [0147], the processor may derive the first MVD for the video block based on a first MVD candidate associated with the minimum matching cost among the plurality of matching costs, where a MVD can be calculated to be a difference between the motion vector and the motion vector predictor (e.g., MVD=the motion vector−the motion vector predictor) see Par. [0105]), in response to the current block being coded using the bi-prediction (Par. [0102], when the video block is coded with bi-prediction using the AMVP mode, the bilateral matching technique disclosed herein can be applied to derive one or more MVDs. Par. [0140] In the second exemplary case where the video block is coded using the bi-prediction scheme, the processor may perform MVD prediction 618 to determine one or more MVDs for the video block using the bilateral matching technique), each of the matching costs is determined (Par. [0146], for each pair of the first MVD candidates and the second MVD candidates, the processor may determine a matching cost) between one or more neighbouring samples of the current block and one or more predicted samples from one or more corresponding neighbouring samples of each reference block (Fig. 5B, Par. [0094], template matching technique is a decoder-side MV derivation method configured to refine motion information of a current video block (e.g., a current CU) by finding the closest match between a template in a current video frame and a reference region in a reference frame) pointed by a bi-prediction candidate MV (Fig. 5B, initial MV, Par. [0094], a template can include a top neighboring block and/or a left neighbouring block of the current CU in the current video frame. A reference region of the template may have the same size as the template and may include a first reference block and/or a second reference block determined by a motion vector candidate from a reference frame, where the template matching technique can be cascaded with a bilateral matching (i.e. bi-prediction) process in merge modes) based on at least the first MVP, the second MVP, and a candidate of said at least one pre-defined set of candidates (Par. [0149], MVD prediction 618 under the bi-prediction scheme, the one or more MVDs to be derived (i.e. candidate) on the decoder side may include a pair of MVDs, including (a) the first MVD for the first motion vector associated with the first reference frame list and (b) the second MVD for the second motion vector associated with the second reference frame list).
References LIU and YAN are considered to be analogous art because they both provide a guide device to aid the visually impaired. Therefore, it would have been obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of further specifying determining each matching costs by bi-prediction candidate MV as suggested by YAN in the invention of LIU in order to check with the bilateral matching technique which leads to the minimum matching cost being selected for the derivation of the first MVD and the second MVD on the decoder side (See YAN, Par. [0149]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 - 16 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 7 specifically defines in response to the current block being coded using the uni-prediction or the bi-prediction, one or more candidates in said at least one pre-defined set of MVD candidates are derived from an initial MVD that is not readily taught or suggested by the prior art uncovered during search or made of record. Claims 8 - 16 are allowed for the reasons above by virtue of their respective dependencies.
Conclusion
The prior art references made of record are not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Karczewicz et al. (US 2018/0278949 A1) teaches constraining motion vector information derived by decoder-side motion vector derivation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 8:00 am (EST) to 4:00 pm (EST).
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (571) . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425