DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 § 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.
2. Claim 15 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.
It is noted that, the claim is directed to; A non-transitory computer readable medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding.
The limitation as recited in the preamble does not make it clear whether the computer readable
medium contains instructions to perform the decoding process or not. Additionally, it is not clear if the
decoder performing a decoding process is operating on the bitstream stored on the medium or not since
the claim appears to recite two separate functions.
In accordance with compact prosecution as prescribed in MPEP 2173.06, claim language is
interpreted as follows: Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when
there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05
For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional
relationship exists if the programming "performs some function with respect to the computer\
c with which it is associated." Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium
merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information
or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
However, claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding. The body of the claim appears to indicate how the bitstream is
being generated or decoded. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and
the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended
computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream
and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the coding process of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. And claim 15 considered as vague and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3,6-10,13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chuang et al. (US 2020/0077088).
Regarding claim 1, Chuang discloses an image decoding method (e.g., fig. 7), comprising; determining initial motion information for a target block (e.g., figs. 1,4,7, abstract, paragraphs 0002,0004,0065,etc.), and determining motion information based on the initial motion information (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0009,0016,0065), wherein a prediction block for the target block is generated based on the motion information (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0014,0016,0039,0060).
Regarding claim 2, Chuang discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein; a list for the target block is generated using the initial motion information (e.g., figs. 3a-4,7, abstract, paragraphs 0008-0009,0016-0018,etc.) and the motion information is determined based on the list (e.g., figs. 1,3a-4. And7-8, abstract, paragraphs 0004,0006,0028-0031,0065-0067,etc.).
Regarding claim 3, Chuang discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein; the motion information is one of multiple candidates in the list, and the prediction block for the target block is generated using final motion information derived through correction of the motion information (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0009,0014,0016,0018,0067).
Regarding claim 6, Chuang discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein; the list is generated by applying correction to the initial motion information, and the correction is at least one of template matching, bilateral matching, and an operation using a motion offset (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0002,0005,0008-0009,0012,etc. also claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Chuang discloses the image decoding method of claim 2, wherein each of multiple candidates in the list is at least one of motion information, a sample, a motion information offset and a motion information correction vector (e.g., it is noted that, the claim is in an alternative format, abstract, paragraphs 0006,0008-0009,0028-0031,etc., meets at least one of the above alternatives).
Regarding claims 8 and 14-15, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claims 1 and 7
above, and is addressed in the above claims. As for the additional limitation “wherein the motion information is information used to generate a prediction block for the target block”, (e.g., figs. 1-4).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 2 above, and is addressed in the above claim 2.
Regarding claims 10,13,17, and 20, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claims 3 and 6 above, and is addressed in the above claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 4,11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2020/0077088) in view of Lim et al. (US 2024/0064289).
Regarding claim 4, Chuang teaches the image decoding method of claim 3, including final motion information, as discussed in the above claim.
Chuang is silent to explicitly indicate, the final motion information is configured to determine a reference block for the target block.
Lim, in the same field of endeavor, and more in details teaches final motion information is configured to determine a reference block for the target block (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0083-0084,
0093,0188,0189,0194,0280-0281,etc, optimum motion vector, e.g., considered as final motion vector).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Lim, into the video coding
system of Chuang, in order to improve coding efficiency, as suggested by the reference.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 4 above, and is addressed in the above claim 4.
9. Claims 5,12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2020/0077088) in view of Lim et al. (US 2024/0064289) further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2023/182781).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Chuang and Lim, teach the image decoding method of claim 4, but is silent in regards to, wherein reordering of the multiple candidates is applied based on costs of the multiple candidates.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, and throughout the disclosure teaches (e.g., … an extended motion candidate list composed of a motion candidate list and one or more motion difference value candidates is reordered based on the TM cost value, and motion information of the current block is obtained using the motion candidates in the reordered list. This is a way to correct. The encoder may generate a bitstream containing information about an index indicating one of the candidates in the reordered list. The decoder can separately receive an index indicating one of the motion candidates in the reordered motion candidate list and predict (restore) the current block based on the motion candidate indicated by the index. Alternatively, the decoder may select the motion candidate with the lowest cost value and predict (restore) the current block based on the motion candidate with the lowest cost value), thus considered equivalent to the claimed limitation.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Kim, into the video coding system of Lim, in order to improve coding efficiency, as suggested by the reference.
Regarding claims 12 and 19, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 5 above, and is addressed in the above claim 5.
10. Claims 1,8 and 15 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 2024/0064289).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses an image decoding method, comprising; determining initial motion information for a target block (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0009-0010,0059,0062,0139,0188,0672-0673), and determining motion information based on the initial motion information (e.g., abstract, paragraph 0672-0673), wherein a prediction block for the target block is generated based on the motion information (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0009,0274,0281-0282, etc., fig. 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and is addressed in the above claim 1. As for the additional limitation “wherein the motion information is
information used to generate a prediction block for the target block”, (e.g., fig. 1, also paragraphs 0274,0281-0282,0288).
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can
normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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,
Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571 272 7331. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact
the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-
9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482