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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the Applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to teach deriving, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit, an affine model for a non-adjacent affine motion candidate of the video unit based on a set of motion vectors, wherein the affine model comprises a set of affine parameters. The Applicant argues that in Chen, the candidate derivation for affine merge mode is using non-adjacent blocks NOT the affine model deriving for the non-adjacent affine motion candidate. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Chen discloses, for constructed merge candidates, non-adjacent neighbor based derivation process may be performed in five steps: Step 1 is for candidate scanning; Step 2 is for affine model determination; Step 3 is for CPMV projection; Step 4 is for candidate generation; and Step 5 is for candidate pruning (Chen: paragraph [0237]). In Step 1, non-adjacent neighboring blocks may be scanned and selected (Chen: paragraph [0237]).
Chen also discloses, as shown in FIG. 9, in order to form a virtual coding block, three corners named as A, B and C are needed (Chen: paragraph [0250]). For easier implementation, the scanning process in Step 1 may be only performed for identifying the non-adjacent neighboring blocks located at corners B and C, while the coordinate of A may be precisely determined by taking the horizontal coordinate of C and the vertical coordinate of B (Chen: paragraph [0250]).
For constructed candidates, as shown in the FIG. 17B, the positions of left and above non-adjacent spatial neighbors are firstly determined independently (Chen: paragraph [0262]). After that, the location of the top-left neighbor can be determined accordingly which can enclose a rectangular virtual block together with the left and above non-adjacent neighbors (Chen: paragraph [0262]). Then, as shown in the FIG. 9, the motion information of the three non-adjacent neighbors is used to form the CPMVs at the top-left (A), top-right (B) and bottom-left (C) of the virtual block, which is finally projected to the current CU to generate the corresponding constructed candidates (Chen: paragraph [0262]). In Step 2, the translational MVs at the positions of the selected candidates after step 1 are evaluated and an appropriate affine model may be determined (Chen: paragraph [0263]).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20250047897 A1).
Re claim 1, Chen discloses a method of video processing, comprising:
deriving, during a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, an affine model for a non-adjacent affine motion candidate of the video unit based on a set of motion vectors, wherein the affine model comprises a set of affine parameters (Chen: paragraph [0190]; paragraph [0237]; paragraph [0250]; paragraphs [0262]-[0263]); and
performing the conversion based on the affine model (Chen: paragraphs [0006]-[0007], motion information used in encoding and decoding processes).
Re claim 2, Chen discloses that the set of motion vectors is corner-position motion vectors (CPMVs), and wherein the set of motion vectors is derived from at least one non-adjacent block of the video unit (Chen: Fig. 5).
Re claim 3, Chen discloses that the set of affine parameters comprises at least one of the following affine parameters: a=(mv1h-mv0h)/pw, b=(mv1v-mv0v)/pw, c=(mv2h-mv0h)/ph, or d=(mv2v-mv0v)/ph, and wherein a, b, c, d represent affine parameters, pw represents a first distance between a first block and a second block, ph represents a second distance between the first block and a third block, mv.sub.0 represents a first motion vector that is derived from the first block, mv.sub.1 represents a second motion vector that is derived from the second block, mv.sub.2 represents a third motion vector that is derived from the third block, v represents a vertical direction, and h represents a horizontal direction (Chen: paragraph [0192]).
Re claim 4, Chen discloses
wherein the first block and the second block are at a same block row (Chen: Fig. 17B; paragraph [0062]), and/or
wherein the first block and the third block are at a same block column (Chen: Fig. 17B; paragraph [0062]), or
wherein at least one of: the first block, the second block, or the third block is a non-adjacent block to a current block of the video unit (Chen: Fig. 17B; paragraph [0062]).
Re claim 5, Chen discloses that the affine model is derived based on a shifting operation (Chen: paragraphs [0453]-[0456]).
Re claim 17, Chen discloses that the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (Chen: paragraphs [0006]-[0007], motion information used in encoding and decoding processes).
Claim 18 recites the corresponding apparatus for implementing the method of claim 1. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 18. Additionally, Chen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to carry out the method (Chen: paragraphs [0012] and [0013]). Accordingly, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 19 recites the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to implement the method of claim 1. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 19. Additionally, Chen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to carry out the method (Chen: paragraphs [0012] and [0013]). Accordingly, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 21 recites the corresponding method for storing a bitstream using the process of claim 1. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 1821 Additionally, Chen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Chen: paragraph [0014]). Accordingly, claim 21 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1 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 (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.
Claim(s) 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20250047897 A1) in view of Huang et al. (US 20200077113 A1).
Re claim 6, Chen does not specifically disclose that the set of affine parameters comprises at least one of the following affine parameters: a=SignShift(P.Math.(mv1h-mv0h),WB), b=SignShift(P.Math.(mv1v-mv0v),WB), c=SignShift(P.Math.(mv2h-mv0h),HB), or d=SignShift(P.Math.(mv2v-mv0v),HB), and wherein a, b, c, d represent affine parameters, WB=log.sub.2(PW), HB=log.sub.2(PH), P represents a calculation precision and is an integer number, mv.sub.0 represents a first motion vector that is derived from the first block, mv.sub.1 represents a second motion vector that is derived from the second block, mv.sub.2 represents a third motion vector that is derived from the third block, v represents a vertical direction, h represents a horizontal direction, W represents a width, and H represents a height. However, Huang discloses calculating affine parameters using a look up table (LUT), wherein the calculation utilizes a precision metric and logarithmic shifting operation (Huang: paragraphs [0173]-[0177]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Re claim 7, Chen does not specifically disclose that if at least one of: PW=2.sup.WB or PH=2.sup.HB is satisfied, a division operation for deriving the affine model is replaced by the shifting operation, and wherein WB=log.sub.2(PW), HB=log.sub.2(PH), P represents a calculation precision and is an integer number. However, Huang discloses that the division used in inherited affine motion vector predictor derivation process can be simplified by scaling according to a look up table, and shifting the results (Huang: paragraph [0172]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Re claim 8, Chen does not specifically disclose that the affine model is derived based on a lookup table. However, Huang discloses calculating affine parameters using a look up table (LUT), wherein the calculation utilizes a precision metric and logarithmic shifting operation (Huang: paragraphs [0173]-[0177]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Re claim 9, Chen does not specifically disclose that if at least one of: PW is not in a form of PW=2.sup.WB or PH is not in a form of PH=2.sup.HB is satisfied, a division operation for deriving the affine model is replaced by the lookup table, and wherein WB=log.sub.2(PW), HB=log.sub.2(PH), P represents a calculation precision and is an integer number, PW represents a first distance between a first block and a second block, PH represents a second distance between the first block and a third block, WB represents a variable derived based on PW, and HB represents a variable derived based on PH. However, Huang discloses calculating affine parameters using a look up table (LUT), wherein the calculation utilizes a precision metric and logarithmic shifting operation (Huang: paragraphs [0173]-[0177]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Re claim 10, Chen does not specifically disclose that the set of affine parameters comprises at least one of the following affine parameters: a=SignShift(T(WI).Math.(mv1h-mv0h),B), b=SignShift(T(WI).Math.(mv1v-mv0v),B), c=SignShift(T(HI).Math.(mv2h-mv0h),B), or d=SignShift(T(HI).Math.(mv2v-mv0v),B), and wherein a, b, c, d represent affine parameters, T is the lookup table and B is an integer representing a precision, mv.sub.0 represents a first motion vector that is derived from the first block, mv.sub.1 represents a second motion vector that is derived from the second block, mv.sub.2 represents a third motion vector that is derived from the third block, WI and HI are parameters. However, Huang discloses calculating affine parameters using a look up table (LUT), wherein the calculation utilizes a precision metric and logarithmic shifting operation (Huang: paragraphs [0173]-[0177]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Re claim 11, Chen does not specifically disclose that WI is derived based on PW, and/or wherein HI is derived based on PH, and wherein PW=2.sup.WB or PH=2.sup.HB. However, Huang discloses calculating affine parameters using a look up table (LUT), wherein the calculation utilizes a precision metric and logarithmic shifting operation (Huang: paragraphs [0173]-[0177]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Re claim 12, Chen does not specifically disclose that WI is equal to PW, and/or wherein HI is equal to PH. However, Huang discloses calculating affine parameters using a look up table (LUT), wherein the calculation utilizes a precision metric and logarithmic shifting operation (Huang: paragraphs [0173]-[0177]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Re claim 13, Chen does not specifically disclose that the lookup table is at least partially shared with another coding tool. However, Huang discloses luma and chroma coding, wherein operations to identify a motion vector (MV) and reference picture for a luma coding block need not be repeated for identifying a MV and reference picture for the chroma blocks (Huang: paragraph [0109]). Rather, the MV for the luma coding block may be scaled to determine the MV for the chroma blocks, and the reference picture may be the same (Huang:” paragraph [0109]). As another example, the intra-prediction process may be the same for the luma coding blocks and the chroma coding blocks (Huang: paragraph [0109]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Re claim 14, Chen does not specifically disclose that the other coding tool is a cross-component linear model (CCLM). However, Huang discloses luma and chroma coding, wherein operations to identify a motion vector (MV) and reference picture for a luma coding block need not be repeated for identifying a MV and reference picture for the chroma blocks (Huang: paragraph [0109]). Rather, the MV for the luma coding block may be scaled to determine the MV for the chroma blocks, and the reference picture may be the same (Huang:” paragraph [0109]). As another example, the intra-prediction process may be the same for the luma coding blocks and the chroma coding blocks (Huang: paragraph [0109]). Mode selection unit 202 includes a motion estimation unit 222, motion compensation unit 224, and an intra-prediction unit 226 (Huang: paragraph [0089]). Mode selection unit 202 may include additional functional units to perform video prediction in accordance with other prediction modes (Huang: paragraph [0089]). As examples, mode selection unit 202 may include a palette unit, an intra-block copy unit (which may be part of motion estimation unit 222 and/or motion compensation unit 224), an affine unit, a linear model (LM) unit, or the like (Huang: paragraph [0089]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Re claim 15, Chen does not specifically disclose that the affine model is derived based on a first algorithm that is used to replace a division operation in another coding tool. However, Huang discloses that division is replaced by scaling and right shifting the result (Huang: paragraphs [0165] and [0172]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Re claim 16, Chen does not specifically disclose that the first algorithm is used to derive the affine model, if PW is not in a form of PW=2.sup.WB or PH is not in a form of PH=2.sup.HB. However, Huang discloses calculating affine parameters using a look up table (LUT), wherein the calculation utilizes a precision metric and logarithmic shifting operation (Huang: paragraphs [0173]-[0177]). Since Chen and Huang relate to affine motion prediction, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the motion information processing of Huang with the system of Chen in order to reduce computational complexity (Huang: paragraph [0387]) and reduce memory requirements (Huang: paragraph [0147]).
Conclusion
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights