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 .
2. The Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 02/05/2026.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed on 02/05/2026, Claims 1, 5-14, and 16-20 have been amended; Claim 4 is cancelled; therefore, claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending.
4. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/05/2026, pages 6-10 have been fully considered.
Double Patenting Rejections
Since applicant has not filed terminal disclaimer yet, the Double Patenting Rejections are still maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b)
Since applicant has amended independent claims properly, therefore, the 112(b) rejection in the non-final office action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
Since applicant has amended independent claim 20 properly, the 102 rejection in the non-final office action is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been fully considered.
Basically, applicant argued that the prior arts (LELEANNEC et al. (WO 2020131659) and in view of LEE et al. (EP 3203743)) does not discloses the amended limitation of : “wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode” in amended independent claims, since:
“the cited location of Leleannec merely explains that merge with motion vector difference (i.e., MMVD) is a tool that applies in merge mode and is controlled by an "mmvd skip" flag. However, despite the Office Action's suggestion to the contrary, whether MMVD is enabled is not related to whether SMVD mode is enabled. That is, Leleannec only relates to enabling or disabling MMVD, not SMVD as required by claim 1. In fact, a review of the remainder of its disclosure demonstrates that Leleannec is totally silent regarding any mechanism for disabling SMVD, let alone the specificity of being based on the selection of merge mode or UMVE mode as specifically required by claim 1 ".
“Lee 2 and Luo also fail to satisfy the deficiencies of Leleannec. In view of the foregoing, the Applicants respectfully submit that Leleannec and Lee 2 (and Luo) fail to disclose or suggest at least one limitation of claim 1, and consequently fail to render obvious claims 1-3 and 5-20”.
Examiner’s Response:
After reviewing the claim limitations and the prior arts, examiner believe that the current prior arts (LELEANNEC et al. (WO 2020131659) and in view of LEE et al. (EP 3203743)) still teach the aforementioned limitation. Follows are reason:
LELEANNEC discloses that “determination, wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode” not only in page 12, but also in fig. 5, step 1002; in which, when MMVD is selected in merge mode and SMVD is selected in AMVP mode; also in page 10, as: “two basic modes for deriving the MVs are used, Merge and AMVP. In both cases, a MV candidate list is derived. This derivation process generally differs for these two modes”; page 34, as: “the SMVD motion vector coding mode only applies in AMVP mode, whereas the MMVD motion vector representation mode only applies in merge mode”; therefore, when in merge mode, the SMVD is disabled, since SMVD only applied to another mode, the AMVP mode.
Therefore, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE discloses the limitations of: “determination, wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode” in independent claims.
The applicant also argued that dependent claims should be allowed due to their dependency on independent claims.
Examiner’s Response:
As discussed above, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE discloses the limitations in independent claims.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
6. Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-3, 5-17 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of US Patent US 12108072.
For Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-3, 5-17, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they both are dealing with method of video processing. As clearly indicated in the table below, each claimed limitations of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-3, 5-17 of the current application are anticipated by the corresponding limitations of claim 1-15 of the reference patent.
US 12108072
Current Application
Claim 1:
A method of video processing, comprising:
making a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block, whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected mode for the conversion;
and performing the conversion based on the determination,
wherein, in response to the currently selected mode being an affine mode, the determination disables a usage of the SMVD mode;
and wherein, in response to the currently selected mode is an affine SMVD mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode
Claim 4’s limitation:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected best mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode.
claim 2:
wherein the SMVD mode is used without explicit signaling of at least one reference index of a reference list
claim 3:
wherein the reference index is derived based on a recursive picture order count (POC) calculation.
claim 5:
wherein the UMVE mode applies a motion vector offset to refine a motion candidate derived from a merge candidate list.
Claim 6
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is not coded with the SMVD mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode
Claim 7:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is an affine mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode
Claim 8:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a sub-block merge mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 1’s limitation:
and wherein, in response to the currently selected mode is an affine SMVD mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 8’s limitation:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is an affine merge mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 9:
wherein the determination is applied only when a MVD (motion vector differences) precision is greater than or equal to a precision.
Claim 10:
wherein the determination is applied only when a MVD precision is greater than a precision.
Claim 11:
wherein the determination is applied only when MVD precision is smaller than or equal to a precision.
Claim 12:
wherein the determination is applied only when MVD precision is smaller than a precision.
Claim 13:
wherein, the SMVD mode is the affine SMVD mode.
Claim 14:
wherein the performing of the conversion includes generating the bitstream from the current video block.
Claim 15:
wherein the performing of the conversion includes generating the current video block from the bitstream.
Claim 1
A method of video processing, comprising:
making a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block, of whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected mode for the conversion;
and performing the conversion based on the determination;
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode
Claim 2
wherein the SMVD mode is used without explicit signaling of at least one reference index of reference list
Claim 3
wherein the at least one reference index is derived based recursive picture order count (POC) calculation.
Claim 5
wherein the UMVE mode applies a motion vector offset to refine a motion candidate derived from a merge candidate list.
Claim 6
wherein, in a case that the currently selected best mode is not coded with the SMVD mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 8:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected best mode is a sub-block merge mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 7:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected best mode is an affine merge mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 9:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected best mode is an affine SMVD mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 10:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected best mode is an affine merge mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 11:
wherein the determination is applied only when a motion vector differences (MVD) precision is greater than or equal to a precision.
Claim 12:
wherein the determination is applied only when a motion vector differences (MVD) precision is greater than a precision.
Claim 13:
wherein the determination is applied only when motion vector differences (MVD) precision is less than or equal to a precision.
Claim 14:
wherein the determination is applied only when motion vector differences (MVD) precision is less than a precision.
Claim 15:
wherein the SMVD mode is an affine SMVD mode.
Claim 16:
wherein the performing of the conversion includes generating the bitstream from the current block.
Claim 17:
wherein the performing of the conversion includes generating the current video block from the bitstream.
7. Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16, 4 of US Patent US 12108072 indicated below.
For Claim 18, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they both are dealing with apparatus for processing video data. As clearly indicated in the table below, each claimed limitations of claim 18 of the current application are anticipated by the corresponding limitations of claim 16, 4 of the reference patent.
US 12108072
Current Application
Claim 16:
An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
make a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block, whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected mode for the conversion;
and perform the conversion based on the determination,
wherein, in response to the currently selected mode being an affine mode, the determination disables a usage of the SMVD mode; and wherein, in response to the currently selected mode being an affine SMVD mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 4’s limitation:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected best mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 18
An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to:
make a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block, of whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected best mode for the conversion;
and perform the conversion based on the determination;
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode
8. Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18, 4 of US Patent US 12108072 indicated below.
For Claim 19, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they both are dealing with non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that cause a processor for processing video data. As clearly indicated in the table below, each claimed limitations of claim 19 of the current application are anticipated by the corresponding limitations of claim 18, 4 of the reference patent.
US 12108072
Current Application
Claim 18:
non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that cause a processor to:
make a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block, whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected mode for the conversion;
and perform the conversion based on the determination,
wherein, in response to the currently selected mode being an affine mode, the determination disables a usage of the SMVD mode; and wherein, in response to the currently selected mode being an affine SMVD mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 4’s limitation:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected best mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 19
A non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that cause a processor to:
make a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block, of whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected best mode for the conversion;
and perform the conversion based on the determination,
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode
9. Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19, 4 of US Patent US 12108072 indicated below.
For Claim 20, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they both are dealing with method storing a bitstream of a video. As clearly indicated in the table below, each claimed limitations of claim 19 of the current application are anticipated by the corresponding limitations of claim 18 of the reference patent.
US 12108072
Current Application
Claim 19:
A method for storing a bitstream of a video, comprising
making a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block, whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected mode for the conversion;
generating the bitstream based on the determination;
and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein, in response to the currently selected mode being an affine mode, the determination disables a usage of the SMVD mode; and wherein, in response to the currently selected mode being an affine SMVD mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 4’s limitation:
wherein, in a case that the currently selected best mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode.
Claim 20
A method for storing a bitstream of a video comprises
making a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block, of whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected best mode for the conversion;
and generating the bitstream based on the determination,
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-14, 16-20 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LELEANNEC et al. (WO 2020131659) and in view of LEE et al. (EP 3203743).
Regarding claim 1, LELEANNEC teaches a method of video processing (fig. 3/fig. 4), comprising:
making a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block (as shown in fig. 3/fig. 4, video encoding/decoding is the conversion), whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected mode for the conversion (as shown in fig. 5, SMVD is selected in 1002; page 13, … The coding of CU under this constraint, called the SMVD mode, is signaled through a CU-level flag symmetrical_mvd_flag. This flag is coded if the SMVD mode is feasible for, i.e. if the prediction mode of the CU is bi-prediction and two reference pictures for the CU are found as follows);
and performing the conversion based on the determination (as shown in fig. 5, step 1004-1009);
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode (page 12, … in Merge mode. It uses the merge candidate list. A flag "mmvd_skip" indicates if MMVD mode applies or not; also in fig. 5, step 1002; in which, when MMVD is selected in merge mode and SMVD is selected in AMVP mode; also in page 10, as: “two basic modes for deriving the MVs are used, Merge and AMVP. In both cases, a MV candidate list is derived. This derivation process generally differs for these two modes”; page 34, as: “the SMVD motion vector coding mode only applies in AMVP mode, whereas the MMVD motion vector representation mode only applies in merge mode”; therefore, when in merge mode, the SMVD is disabled, since SMVD only applied to another mode, the AMVP mode).
It is noticed that LELEANNEC does not disclose explicitly of a currently selected best mode.
LEE discloses of a currently selected best mode (page 3, paragraph 0009, Best mode… a motion vector encoding apparatus includes: a predictor configured to obtain motion vector predictor candidates of a plurality of predetermined motion vector resolutions by using
a spatial candidate block and a temporal candidate block of a current block, and to determine motion vector predictor of the current block, a motion vector of the current block, and a motion vector resolution of the current block by using the motion vector predictor candidates).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that a currently selected best mode as a modification to the method for the benefit of that improve efficiency in encoding/decoding operations (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 18, LELEANNEC teaches an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor (fig. 3/fig. 4), and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor (page 42, … encoder/decoder module 1030 can be implemented as a separate element of system 1000 or can be incorporated within processor 1010 as a combination of hardware and software as known to those skilled in the art) to:
making a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block (as shown in fig. 3/fig. 4, video encoding/decoding is the conversion), whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected mode for the conversion (as shown in fig. 5, SMVD is selected in 1002; page 13, … The coding of CU under this constraint, called the SMVD mode, is signaled through a CU-level flag symmetrical_mvd_flag. This flag is coded if the SMVD mode is feasible for, i.e. if the prediction mode of the CU is bi-prediction and two reference pictures for the CU are found as follows);
and performing the conversion based on the determination (as shown in fig. 5, step 1004-1009);
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode (page 12, … in Merge mode. It uses the merge candidate list. A flag "mmvd_skip" indicates if MMVD mode applies or not; also in fig. 5, step 1002; in which, when MMVD is selected in merge mode and SMVD is selected in AMVP mode; also in page 10, as: “two basic modes for deriving the MVs are used, Merge and AMVP. In both cases, a MV candidate list is derived. This derivation process generally differs for these two modes”; page 34, as: “the SMVD motion vector coding mode only applies in AMVP mode, whereas the MMVD motion vector representation mode only applies in merge mode”; therefore, when in merge mode, the SMVD is disabled, since SMVD only applied to another mode, the AMVP mode).
It is noticed that LELEANNEC does not disclose explicitly of a currently selected best mode.
LEE discloses of a currently selected best mode (page 3, paragraph 0009, Best mode… a motion vector encoding apparatus includes: a predictor configured to obtain motion vector predictor candidates of a plurality of predetermined motion vector resolutions by using
a spatial candidate block and a temporal candidate block of a current block, and to determine motion vector predictor of the current block, a motion vector of the current block, and a motion vector resolution of the current block by using the motion vector predictor candidates).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that a currently selected best mode as a modification to the apparatus for the benefit of that improve efficiency in encoding/decoding operations (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 19, LELEANNEC teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that cause a processor to (page 42, … encoder/decoder module 1030 can be implemented as a separate element of system 1000 or can be incorporated within processor 1010 as a combination of hardware and software as known to those skilled in the art) to:
making a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block (as shown in fig. 3/fig. 4, video encoding/decoding is the conversion), whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected mode for the conversion (as shown in fig. 5, SMVD is selected in 1002; page 13, … The coding of CU under this constraint, called the SMVD mode, is signaled through a CU-level flag symmetrical_mvd_flag. This flag is coded if the SMVD mode is feasible for, i.e. if the prediction mode of the CU is bi-prediction and two reference pictures for the CU are found as follows);
and performing the conversion based on the determination (as shown in fig. 5, step 1004-1009);
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode (page 12, … in Merge mode. It uses the merge candidate list. A flag "mmvd_skip" indicates if MMVD mode applies or not; also in fig. 5, step 1002; in which, when MMVD is selected in merge mode and SMVD is selected in AMVP mode; also in page 10, as: “two basic modes for deriving the MVs are used, Merge and AMVP. In both cases, a MV candidate list is derived. This derivation process generally differs for these two modes”; page 34, as: “the SMVD motion vector coding mode only applies in AMVP mode, whereas the MMVD motion vector representation mode only applies in merge mode”; therefore, when in merge mode, the SMVD is disabled, since SMVD only applied to another mode, the AMVP mode).
It is noticed that LELEANNEC does not disclose explicitly of a currently selected best mode.
LEE discloses of a currently selected best mode (page 3, paragraph 0009, Best mode… a motion vector encoding apparatus includes: a predictor configured to obtain motion vector predictor candidates of a plurality of predetermined motion vector resolutions by using
a spatial candidate block and a temporal candidate block of a current block, and to determine motion vector predictor of the current block, a motion vector of the current block, and a motion vector resolution of the current block by using the motion vector predictor candidates).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that a currently selected best mode as a modification to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for the benefit of that improve efficiency in encoding/decoding operations (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 20, LELEANNEC teaches a method of storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method (fig. 3; page 42, … encoder/decoder module 1030 can be implemented as a separate element of system 1000 or can be incorporated within processor 1010 as a combination of hardware and software as known to those skilled in the art) comprises:
making a determination, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the current video block (as shown in fig. 3/fig. 4, video encoding/decoding is the conversion), whether to use a symmetric motion vector difference (SMVD) mode based on a currently selected mode for the conversion (as shown in fig. 5, SMVD is selected in 1002; page 13, … The coding of CU under this constraint, called the SMVD mode, is signaled through a CU-level flag symmetrical_mvd_flag. This flag is coded if the SMVD mode is feasible for, i.e. if the prediction mode of the CU is bi-prediction and two reference pictures for the CU are found as follows);
and performing the conversion based on the determination (as shown in fig. 5, step 1004-1009);
wherein, in a case that the currently selected mode is a merge mode or an ultimate motion vector expression (UMVE) mode, the determination disables usage of the SMVD mode (page 12, … in Merge mode. It uses the merge candidate list. A flag "mmvd_skip" indicates if MMVD mode applies or not; also in fig. 5, step 1002; in which, when MMVD is selected in merge mode and SMVD is selected in AMVP mode; also in page 10, as: “two basic modes for deriving the MVs are used, Merge and AMVP. In both cases, a MV candidate list is derived. This derivation process generally differs for these two modes”; page 34, as: “the SMVD motion vector coding mode only applies in AMVP mode, whereas the MMVD motion vector representation mode only applies in merge mode”; therefore, when in merge mode, the SMVD is disabled, since SMVD only applied to another mode, the AMVP mode).
It is noticed that LELEANNEC does not disclose explicitly of a currently selected best mode.
LEE discloses of a currently selected best mode (page 3, paragraph 0009, Best mode… a motion vector encoding apparatus includes: a predictor configured to obtain motion vector predictor candidates of a plurality of predetermined motion vector resolutions by using
a spatial candidate block and a temporal candidate block of a current block, and to determine motion vector predictor of the current block, a motion vector of the current block, and a motion vector resolution of the current block by using the motion vector predictor candidates).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that a currently selected best mode as a modification to the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for the benefit of that improve efficiency in encoding/decoding operations (paragraph 0033).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that the SMVD mode is used without explicit signaling of at least one reference index of reference list (page 12, … two symmetrical MV differences are obtained from the single coded MV; which means SMVD mode is used without explicit signaling of at least one reference index of reference list ).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that the reference index is derived based recursive picture order count (POC) calculation (page 12, … consider the case where the reference picture k (k=0 or 1) is the closest one to the current picture. Let's define kk=1-k, POCref_0, POCref_ 1 and POCcur the picture order count of the reference picture 0, reference picture 1 and current picture, respectively…. Then the refinement MVs for each of the reference pictures are derived as follows…; which is recursive picture order count (POC) calculation).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that the UMVE mode applies a motion vector offset to refine a motion candidate derived from a merge candidate list (page 12, … consider the case where the reference picture k (k=0 or 1) is the closest one to the current picture. Let's define kk=1-k, POCref_0, POCref_ 1 and POCcur the picture order count of the reference picture 0, reference picture 1 and current picture, respectively…. Then the refinement MVs for each of the reference pictures are derived as follows…; page 22, … using an offset applied to mmvd_dist_idx as follows:).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that in a case that the currently selected mode is not coded with the SMVD mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode (page 6, … SMVD is only applied to translational
AMVP case. As for MMVD, it may be beneficial to extend it to some motion models
beyond the simple translational model….; in which, MMVD is not coded with SMVD mode and SMVD is not used, then).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that in a case that the currently selected mode is an affine mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode (page 9, combine MMVD with the affine motion model, the ATMVP motion model, the planar motion model, the regressive motion field, the triangle partition-
based motion model, the GBI temporal prediction method…; in which, MMVD is not SMVD mode).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that in a case that the currently selected mode is a sub-block merge mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode (page 14, … the ATMVP motion information predictor is part of the
sub-block-based merge candidate list…; in which, SMVD is disabled and not used).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that the determination is applied only when a MVD (motion vector differences) precision is greater than or equal to a precision (page 22, MMVD mode is enabled, with CPR-specific adaptations… The other restriction of the CPR MV is that it has integer precision; integer precision is greater than a kind of precision).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that the determination is applied only when a MVD precision is greater than a precision (page 22, … The other restriction of the CPR MV is that it has integer precision; integer precision is greater than a kind of precision).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that the determination is applied only when MVD precision is smaller than or equal to a precision (page 23, … distMV = dist[ mmvd_dist_idx] For limiting to integer precision…; which means precision is smaller than or equal to a precision).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 2 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that the determination is applied only when MVD precision is smaller than a precision (page 23, … distMV = dist[ mmvd_dist_idx] For limiting to integer precision…; which means precision is smaller than or to a precision since integer precision is smaller than fraction precision).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that the performing of the conversion includes generating the bitstream from the current block (as shown in fig. 3, encoding the block).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, LELEANNEC further discloses that the performing of the conversion includes generating the current video block from the bitstream(as shown in fig. 4, decoding the block).
12. Claims 9-10, 15 are rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LELEANNEC et al. (WO 2020131659) and in view of LEE et al. (EP 3203743) and further in view of LUO et al. (WO 2020132272).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above
It is noticed that LELEANNEC does not disclose explicitly of in a case that the currently selected mode is an affine SMVD mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode.
LUO discloses of in a case that the currently selected best mode is an affine SMVD mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode (paragraph 0158, affine SMVD is used may be determined… when inter-affine indication inter_affine_flag is 1 and SMVD indication sym_mvd_flag[ xO ][ yO ] is 1 , affine SMVD may be applied… SMVD may not be applied).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that in a case that the currently selected best mode is an affine SMVD mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode as a modification to the method for the benefit of that increase the efficiency of motion compensated prediction (paragraph 098).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above
It is noticed that LELEANNEC does not disclose explicitly of in a case that the currently selected mode is an affine merge mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode.
LUO discloses of in a case that the currently selected mode is an affine merge mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode (paragraph 0126, .... In a merge mode, motion information may be derived and/or be used (e.g., directly used) to generate the prediction samples of the current CU, A merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) may be used…; in which, SMVD mode is disabled and not used since MMVD is used; paragraph 0158, affine SMVD is used may be determined… when inter-affine indication inter_affine_flag is 1 and SMVD indication sym_mvd_flag[ xO ][ yO ] is 1 , affine SMVD may be applied… SMVD may not be applied).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that in a case that the currently selected best mode is an affine merge mode, the determination disables the usage of the SMVD mode as a modification to the method for the benefit of that increase the efficiency of motion compensated prediction (paragraph 098).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of LELEANNEC and LEE teaches the limitations recited in claim 1 as discussed above
It is noticed that LELEANNEC does not disclose explicitly of the SMVD mode is an affine SMVD mode.
LUO discloses of the SMVD mode is an affine SMVD mode (paragraph 0158, affine SMVD is used may be determined… when inter-affine indication inter_affine_flag is 1 and SMVD indication sym_mvd_flag[ xO ][ yO ] is 1 , affine SMVD may be applied…).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the technology that the SMVD mode is an affine SMVD mode as a modification to the method for the benefit of that increase the efficiency of motion compensated prediction (paragraph 098).
Information Disclosure Statement
13. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the parent Application No. 17386346 filed on 07/27/2021.
Priority # Filling Data Country
PCTCN2019074216 01/31/2019 CN
PCTCN2019074433 02/01/2019 CN
15. Conclusion
. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
16. Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAIHAN JIANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1399. The examiner can normally be reached on flexible.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sath Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-0655.
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.
/ZAIHAN JIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488