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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 1, 8, and 9 recite the abbreviation “AMVP” in line 4. Prior to this recitation, there is not a definition for the abbreviation. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner interprets AMVP to mean Advanced Motion Vector Prediction in examining the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a method of transmitting a bitstream generated by an image encoding method” followed by a plurality of steps for the image encoding method and no steps for the transmitting method. It is therefore unclear whether the claimed subject matter is a method of transmitting a bitstream or a method of generating a bitstream. Examiner notes that if the intended invention is a method of transmitting a bitstream, an essential step of transmitting the bitstream is currently omitted from the claim.
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) 1 - 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO2023/177695) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0321894) (hereinafter Lee).
Turning to claims 1, 8, and 9, Chen teaches image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, and a method of transmitting a bitstream generated by the encoding method, the image decoding and encoding methods comprising:
determining prediction modes respectively applied to prediction directions of a current block, the prediction mode comprising an AMVP mode and a merge mode (e.g. par. 138: describing that a prediction mode for a current block is determined to be an AMVP-merge mode, the AMVP merge mode including applying AMVP prediction in one direction and merge prediction in the other direction);
constructing an AMVP predictor and a merge candidate list based on the prediction modes (e.g. pars. 138 – 143: describing that the system derives an AMVP predictor and constructs a merge candidate list); and
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the AMVP candidate list and the merge candidate list (e.g. pars. 138 – 143: describing that the current block is predicted based on the AMVP predictor in one direction and a merge candidate from the merge candidate list in the opposite direction),
wherein the merge candidate list includes a fallback candidate (e.g. pars. 107 – 109, 122, and 140: describing that the merge candidate list includes a zero motion vector, wherein the zero motion vector is the equivalent of the fallback candidate).
Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the AMVP predictor is a AMVP candidate list.
Lee, however, teaches an image encoding method, an image decoding method, and a method of transmitting a bitstream that is generated by image encoding method:
wherein the AMVP predictor is a AMVP candidate list (e.g. pars. 216 – 220: describing that an AMVP predictor is determined based on a constructed AMVP motion candidate list).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Lee in order for the AMVP predictor to be a constructed AMVP candidate list. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification provides for efficient encoding and decoding of various inter prediction modes (Lee, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to provide efficient encoding and decoding of various inter prediction modes).
Turning to claim 2, Chen and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the fallback candidate is included in the merge candidate list based on the number of merge candidates included in the merge candidate list being less than a maximum number of merge candidates (e.g. pars. 108 and 122: describing that a zero motion candidate is inserted into the merge candidate list when the merge list has less than the maximum number of merge candidates, wherein the zero motion candidate is the equivalent of the fallback candidate).
Regarding claim 3, Chen and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1, a discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the fallback candidate is included in the merge candidate list based on the number of reference pictures included in a merge reference picture list being less than a predetermined value (e.g. pars. 138 – 143: describing that the merge candidates, including the zero motion candidate, can only be included in the merge candidate list when there is at least one reference picture in the merge reference picture list that is in the opposite direction of the AMVP prediction reference picture, wherein the zero motion candidate is the equivalent of the fallback candidate, and wherein only including a candidate in the merge candidate list when there is at least one reference picture in an opposite direction [number of specific reference pictures is not less than one] is the equivalent of including the candidate in the merge candidate list based on the number of reference pictures in the merge reference picture list being less than a predetermined value).
Turning to claim 4, Chen and Lee teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the predetermined value is the smaller value among the number of reference pictures included in the merge reference picture list and the number of reference pictures included in the AMVP reference picture list (e.g. pars. 138 – 143: describing that the AMVP reference pictures and the merge reference pictures must be equidistant [describing that the reference pictures must be the same distance from the current picture] and opposite of each other, reasonably suggesting that that the number of reference pictures is the minimum of reference pictures in the AMVP list and reference pictures in the merge list).
Regarding claim 5, Chen and Lee teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, a discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the predetermined value is the number of reference pictures included in the merge reference picture list (e.g. pars. 138 – 143: describing that the merge candidates, including the zero motion candidate, can only be included in the merge candidate list when there is at least one reference picture in the merge reference picture list that is in the opposite direction of the AMVP prediction reference picture [number of specific reference pictures in the merge reference picture list must be equal to or greater than one], wherein the zero motion candidate is the equivalent of the fallback candidate, and wherein only including a candidate in the merge candidate list when there is at least one reference picture in an opposite direction [number of specific reference pictures in the merge reference picture list must be equal to or greater than one] is the equivalent of the predetermined value is based on the number of reference pictures including in the merge reference picture list).
Turning to claim 6, Chen and Lee teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the fallback candidate is included in the merge candidate list based on a reference picture of the fallback candidate being available (e.g. pars. 138 – 143: describing that merge motion candidates, including the zero motion candidate, are only included in the merge candidate list when the reference picture of the motion candidate is in the opposite direction of the AMVP predictor reference picture, wherein the reference picture of the motion candidate being in the opposite direction of the AMVP predictor reference picture is the equivalent of the reference picture of the fallback candidate being available, wherein the zero motion candidate is the equivalent of the fallback candidate).
Regarding claim 7, Chen and Lee teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the fallback candidate is included in the merge candidate list based on the number of merge candidates included in the merge candidate list being less than or equal to a predefined value (e.g. pars. 108 and 122: describing that a zero motion candidate is inserted into the merge candidate list when the merge list has less than the maximum number of merge candidates, wherein the zero motion candidate is the equivalent of the fallback candidate, and wherein the maximum number of merge candidates is the equivalent of the predefined value).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights