DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 12/17/2025, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 13, 15, and 17-19 are currently amended.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 102, 103, the Applicant argues, Pg 8-9, that Li does not teach “generate a first merge list for the current block generate, based on the first merge list for the current block, a second merge list for the current block” by asserting that the L0 list and the L1 list are not the same as the first merge list and the second merge and they are not dependent on one another.
Examiner cannot concur. In relevant teaching of Para. [0097, 102], Li teaches a flag is signaled to indicate whether a GPM merge mode is used, wherein a new merge list/second list is derived from a first merge list/regular list in accordance with the flag indicating the GPM mode or not, and a first merge list and a second merge list contribute the determination of motion information for a current block.
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US Pub. 20250113052 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of decoding video data, the method comprising (Li; Para. [0082]. A video coding system/method is used to code video data.):
determining to decode a current block of the video data using a merge mode (Li; Para. [0091-92]. A current block is determined to be decoded using a merge mode.);
generating a first merge list for the current block (Li; Para. [0097, 102]; A first merge list is generated for a current block.);
generating, based on the first merge list for the current block, a second merge list for the current block (Li; Para. [0097, 102]. A new merge list/second list is derived from a first merge list/regular list in accordance with the flag indicating the GPM mode or not, wherein a first merge list and a second merge list contribute the determination of motion information for a current block.);
obtaining a flag from a bitstream (Li; Para. [0091-92]. A control flag is obtained from a bitstream.);
determining, based on a value of the flag, to use the second merge list of two merge lists for the current block (Li; Para. [0091-92]. A current/second merge list for a current block is determined, in accordance with a control flag, to be used based on a previous/first merge list.); and
decoding the current block based on the second merge list (Li; Para. [0091-92]. A current block is decoded in accordance with a second merge list.).
Claims 13-14 are directed to a device for decoding video data, the device comprising: one or more memories for storing the video data; and one or more processors implemented in circuitry and communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 1-2, and are rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
Claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions, which when executed, cause one or more processors to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 1, and is rejected for the same reason of anticipation as outlined above.
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 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Pub. 20250113052 A1) in view of Zhang (“Non-EE2: LIC flag derivation of merge candidates with template costs”, 07/11/2023, Joint Video Experts Team of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, JVET-AE0109-v2, IDS submitted on 12/02/2024).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses generating the first merge list comprises determining a plurality of merge candidates, each of the plurality of merge candidates in the first merge list having a respective local illumination compensation (LIC) flag value inherited from a respective neighboring block (Li; Para. [0091-92]. Different merge candidates in a first merge list are determined to have different LIC flags inherited from neighboring blocks, see Para. [0171-173].), and wherein generating the second merge list comprises copying the plurality of merge candidates from the first merge list to the second merge list (Li; Para. [0091-92]. A current/second merge list is determined by inheriting/copying different merge candidates from a previous/first merge list.).
But it does not specifically disclose changing a respective LIC flag value for each of the plurality of merge candidates to an opposite value.
However, Zhang teaches changing a respective LIC flag value for each of the plurality of merge candidates to an opposite value (Zhang; Heading “1 Introduction”, “2 Proposed methods”. Respective LIC flags for different merge candidates are changed to opposite values.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Li to adapt a LIC signaling approach, by incorporating Zhang’s teaching wherein LIC flags values are determined according to cost values, for the motivation to derive LIC flags of merge candidates (Zhang; Abstract.).
Claim 15 is directed to a device for decoding video data, the device comprising: one or more memories for storing the video data; and one or more processors implemented in circuitry and communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 3, and is non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Pub. 20250113052 A1) in view of Zhang (“Non-EE2: LIC flag derivation of merge candidates with template costs”, 07/11/2023, Joint Video Experts Team of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, JVET-AE0109-v2, IDS submitted on 12/02/2024), as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Deng (US Pub. 20240195952 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Li teaches the plurality of merge candidates in the second merge list (Li; See remarks regarding claim 1 above.).
But it does not specifically disclose trimming the plurality of merge candidates in the second merge list.
However, Deng discloses trimming the plurality of merge candidates in the second merge list (Deng; Para. [0323]. Different merge candidates are pruned for a merge list, e.g. a second merge list.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified video coding system of Li to adapt a merge candidate generation approach, by incorporating Deng’s teaching wherein pruning/trimming is performed for merge candidates, for the motivation to construct a merge candidate list (Deng; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 5, modified Li further teaches performing template matching cost-based reordering on the second merge list (Li; Para. [0091-92]. Template matching cost-based reordering is performed on a second merge list. Zhang; Heading “1 Introduction”, “2 Proposed methods”. Template matching cost-based reordering is performed on a second merge list.).
Regarding claim 8, modified Li further teaches generating the second merge list comprises: inheriting a local illumination compensation (LIC) parameter set from a neighboring CU (Li; Para. [0090-92]. A second merge list is generated by inheriting a LIC parameter set from neighboring blocks, also see Para. [0172-173, 175].); and
adjusting at least one of a slope parameter of the LIC parameter set or an offset parameter of the LIC parameter set (Li; Para. [0092, 94-95]. At least a slope parameter of a LIC parameter set or an offset parameter of a LIC parameter set is adjusted.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Li further teaches the merge mode comprises a regular merge mode, a bilateral matching merge mode, a template matching merge mode, an advanced motion vector predictor merge mode, or an affine merge mode (Li; Para. [0092]. A merge mode includes at least an AMVP merge mode.).
Claims 16, 18-19 are directed to a device for decoding video data, the device comprising: one or more memories for storing the video data; and one or more processors implemented in circuitry and communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors configured to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claims 4, 8-9, and are non-patentable over the prior art for the same reason as previously indicated.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US Pub. 20250113052 A1) in view of Zhang (“Non-EE2: LIC flag derivation of merge candidates with template costs”, 07/11/2023, Joint Video Experts Team of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, JVET-AE0109-v2, IDS submitted on 12/02/2024) and Deng (US Pub. 20240195952 A1), as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Galpin (US Pub. 20230018401 A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Li teaches the merge mode (Li; See remarks regarding claim 9 above.).
But it does not specifically teach the merge mode comprises the affine merge mode, and wherein the first merge list comprises a plurality of candidates, wherein the plurality of candidates comprises at least one affine merge candidate and at least one subblock temporal motion vector predictor merge candidate.
However, Galpin teaches the merge mode comprises the affine merge mode, and wherein the first merge list comprises a plurality of candidates, wherein the plurality of candidates comprises at least one affine merge candidate and at least one subblock temporal motion vector predictor merge candidate (Galpin; Para. [0166-167]. A merge mode includes at least affine merge mode for a first merge list of different candidates, wherein different candidates include at least one affine merge candidate and one subblock temporal motion vector predictor merge candidate.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified video coding system of Li to adapt a merge candidate generation approach, by incorporating Galpin’s teaching wherein affine candidates and subblock TMVP merge candidates are used, for the motivation to construct a merge candidate list (Deng; Abstract.).
Regarding claim 11, modified Li further teaches generating the second merge list based on the first merge list, wherein generating the second merge list comprises copying the plurality of candidates from the first merge list to the second merge list (Zhang; Heading “1 Introduction”, “2 Proposed methods”. Different candidates are copied/determined from a first merge list for a second merge list.) and inverting a respective local illumination compensation (LIC) flag for each respective of the plurality of candidates in the second merge list (Zhang; Heading “1 Introduction”, “2 Proposed methods”. Different LIC flags are inverted for respective candidates in a second merge list.), and wherein the second merge list does not include the at least one subblock temporal motion vector predictor merge candidate (Zhang; Heading “1 Introduction”, “2 Proposed methods”. A second merge list does not include at least one subblock TMVP merge candidate.).
Regarding claim 12, modified Li further teaches generating the second merge list further comprises replacing the at least one subblock temporal motion vector predictor merge candidate with at least one other affine merge candidate (Galpin; Para. [0175-176]. At least one subblock TMVP merge candidate is replaced with at least one affine merge candidate.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 and 17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chien (US Pub. 20250047897 A1) teaches a video coding system for candidate derivation for affine merge mode in video coding.
Chien (US Pub. 20240357125 A1) teaches a video coding system that performs candidate derivation for affine merge mode in video coding.
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 ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/ALBERT KIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485