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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10, 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. US 2021/0021860
Jang discloses:
1. and under complimentary rationale 11 and 13. An image decoding method (Figs 1 and 2), the method comprising: deriving a temporal vector of a current block based on a motion vector of one candidate in a candidate group including a plurality of candidates (Figs. 15, 16, 17; 0197; 200-9); determining a collocated block of the current block in a collocated picture based on the temporal vector (Figs. 15, 16, 17; 0197; 200-9); deriving a motion vector of the current block in a sub-block unit based on a motion vector of the collocated block (Figs. 15, 16, 17; 0197; 200-9);
13. additionally has generating a prediction sample and generating a bitstream by encoding the current block based on the prediction block; and transmitting data including the bitstream (Figs 1 and 2; 0149; 0192-3; 0328).
Jang does not explicitly disclose the following, however Jang teaches and performing an inter prediction for the current block based on the motion vector of the current block (Figs. 15, 16, 17; 0170-5; 0197; 200-9; 0213-4; clm 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to combine different aspects of the disclosure into a versatile product like using the practices of Inter prediction modes with Advanced temporal vector prediction.
Jang teaches:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein: the one candidate is selected among the plurality of candidates included in the candidate group based on a template matching (0175).
5. The method of claim 4, wherein: a cost of the template matching is calculated based on a sum of absolute differences (SAD) or a mean-removed sum of absolute differences (MRSAD) between a template region of the current block and a template region of a block specified by a motion vector of the plurality of candidates included in the candidate group (Figs. 15, 16, 17; 0175; 0197; 200-9).
6. The method of claim 4, wherein: a cost of the template matching is calculated based on a sum of absolute differences (SAD) or a mean-removed sum of absolute differences (MRSAD) between a template region of the current block and a template region of a block specified by a motion vector of a sub-block or a block derived based on the plurality of candidates included in the candidate group (Figs. 15, 16, 17; 0175; 0197; 200-9).
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: configuring the candidate group including the plurality of candidates based on a neighboring block of the current block, wherein the candidate group is configured by adding a neighboring block at a specific position to the candidate group in a predefined order (Figs. 15, 16, 17; 0197; 200-9).
8. The method of claim 7, wherein: configuring the candidate group includes confirming whether a motion vector of the neighboring block at the specific position overlaps with a motion vector of a candidate previously included in the candidate group (Figs. 15, 16, 17; 0152; 0197; 200-9).
10. The method of claim 1, wherein: the collocated picture is determined based on a syntax element signaled through at least one syntax of a picture header or a slice header, the syntax element is signaled separately from a syntax element indicating a collocated picture for a temporal motion vector predictor (0255-62).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. US 2021/0021860 in view of Zhang et al. US 2024/0275984
Jang teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein: the candidate group includes an adjacent spatial neighboring block of the current block (Figs. 15, 16, 17; 0170-5; 0197; 200-9; 0213-4; clm 1).
Jang does not teach the following, however Zhang teaches non-adjacent spatial neighboring block of the current block as a candidate (0129-37; Fig 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to to derive the additional merge candidates from the positions non-adjacent to the current block using the same pattern as that in VVC (Zhang 0130)
3. The method of claim 2, wherein:
Jang does not teach the following, however Zhang teaches the non-adjacent spatial neighboring block includes a first block including a sample separated by a value obtained by multiplying a height of the current block by 2 from a top-left sample adjacent to a top-left corner of the current block within a left sample line adjacent to the current block and a second block including a sample separated by a value obtained by multiplying a width of the current block by 2 from the top-left sample within a top sample line adjacent to the current block (0129-37; Fig 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to to derive the additional merge candidates from the positions non-adjacent to the current block using the same pattern as that in VVC (Zhang 0130)
9. The method of claim 8,
Jang does not teach the following, however Zhang teaches wherein: whether there is the overlap is determined based on whether a difference between the motion vector of the candidate previously included in the candidate group and the motion vector of the neighboring block at the specific position is smaller than a predefined threshold value (0329).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to reduce the penalty of the uncertainty of DMVR refinement, it is proposed to favor the original MV during the DMVR process (Zhang 0329)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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, Joseph G Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights