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 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to Claim 1, which has been amended to include the limitations of previous claim 8 and additional limitations. The applicant asserts that Xu fails to disclose a step of determining whether the temporal layer of a current CU is a lower temporal layer (Remarks pg. 12). The examiner disagrees. As noted by the applicant Xu discloses that pictures must be decoded in order from lower temporal layers to higher temporal layers, as identified by a temporal identifier. In order to decode in this order Xu must inherently determine whether the temporal ID of a current layer is lower than the temporal ID of other layers in order to ensure that decoding proceeds from lowest to highest layer. Thus the applicants argument is unpersuasive.
The applicant further asserts that Xu does not disclose deriving a TMVP candidate by scaling ‘in response to’ determining that the temporal layer of the current CU is a low temporal layer (Remarks pg. 12). The examiner disagrees. In the combination of Chien and Xu TMVP derivation is part of the coding process of each temporal layer (Chien pars 116-120 and Xu pars 97-104). Hence the derivation of the TMVP is performed ‘in response’ to the temporal layer determination as coding proceeds according to the temporal layer ordering. The examiner notes that the TVMP derivation of the combination will be performed at all temporal layers, not only the low temporal layers. However the claims do not exclude the TMVP derivation process from occurring at temporal layers determined not to be low temporal layers, therefore the applicants arguments are unpersuasive.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-14, 17-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al (2017/0238005) in view of Xu et al (2020/0014917).
In regard to claim 1 Chien discloses a video encoding method (Chien Fig. 2 and pars 79-99), comprising:
receiving a video sequence comprising a plurality of pictures (Chien Fig. 2 note receiving video data);
encoding the plurality of pictures, the encoding comprising:
selecting a plurality of motion candidates for a current coding unit (CU) of a current picture of the plurality of pictures (Chien Figs. 4-5 and pars 113-122 note determining a plurality of motion candidates for predicting a current CU), wherein a temporal motion vector prediction (TMVP) candidate is selected by deriving a scaled motion vector from a motion vector of a collocated CU (Chien Fig. 5 and pars 116-122 note pars 116-118 for deriving a TMVP candidate, further note pars 119-120 for scaling of motion vector candidates including the TMVP),
without converting a uni-predicted motion vector of the collocated CU to a bi-predicted motion vector (Chien par. 70 note uni-directional and bi-directional motion vectors, also note par. 184 note independent motion vector scaling, where scaling is performed in one direction only for uni-directional prediction modes); and
generating a bitstream using the encoded plurality of pictures (Chien Fig. 2 and par. 97 note bitstream output from entropy encoding unit 56).
It is noted that Chien does not disclose details of temporal layers.
However, Xu discloses encoding using a plurality of temporal layers including:
determining whether a temporal layer of the current CU is a lower temporal layer (Xu par. 95 note assigning a temporal ID (Tid) to each layer and determining the smallest Tid value [lowest layer] in order to decode the lower temporal layers before decoding the higher temporal layers); and
in response to the temporal layer being a low temporal layer using motion candidates may for coding the low temporal layers (Xu Figs. 8-9 and pars 91-97 note Fig. 9 and par. 95 note decoding temporal layers in response to determining that the temporal layer has the smallest Tid in decoding order, further note pars . 91-95 for determination of motion candidates , finally note pars. 97-104 for use of motion prediction when using temporal layers, note that low temporal layer pictures may be predicted from previously decoded low layer pictures).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize the advantage of including temporal layer coding as taught by Xu in the invention of Chien in order to support temporal scalability in video coding as suggested by Xu (Xu par. 95).
In regard to claim 2 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Chien further discloses that the scaled motion vector comprises an L0 motion vector and an L1 motion vector (Chien pars 68-70 note motion vectors include L0 and L1 motion vectors).
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection claim 2 above. Chien further discloses that for a bi-predicted motion vector of the collocated CU, the L0 motion vector is scaled from an L0 motion vector of the collocated CU and the L1 motion vector is scaled form an L1 vector of the collocated CU in response to the current picture being a low delay picture (Chien par. 168 note low delay pictures are coded using only temporally previous reference pictures, for low delay picture temporal motion vector predictors are scaled according to their respective reference lists further note pars 119-120 for details of motion vector scaling).
In regard to claims 6 and 7 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 2 above. Chien further discloses that for an L0 or L1 predicted motion vector of the collocated CU, the L0 or L1 motion vector is scaled form an L0 or L1 motion vector of the collocated CU respectively and the L1 or L0 motion vector respectively is set unavailable regardless of whether the current picture is a low-delay picture (Chien note pars. 68-70 and 184 scaling maybe performed independently for each reference list, and motion information for another reference list is unavailable when performing uni-prediction, hence when uni-prediction is performed from the L0 or L1 reference lists no motion exist for the other list and it is therefore unavailable).
In regard to claim 9 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 8 above. Xu further discloses that the temporal layer is lower than layer 3 (Xu Fig. 9 and pars 97-104 note predictive coding used in temporal layer 0).
In regard to claim 10 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 2 above. Xu further discloses that the plurality of motion candidates are selected for low temporal layer of the current CU being a non-low delay picture (Xu Figs 8-9 and pars. 91-104 note use of motion candidates in temporal layer zero further note pars. 66-67 and 71 note coding using B pictures which are predicted from future reference frames indicating that they are non-low delay pictures).
In regard to claim 11 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 2 above. Chien further discloses that the plurality of motion candidates are selected for one of: a regular merge mode, merge with motion vector difference, a geometric partition mode, a combined inter and intra mode, a subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction, an affine merge mode, or a template matching mode. (Chien pars 47-48 note candidate lists for merge and AMVP mode, also note pars 131-138 for ATMVP mode as a sub-block based temporal motion vector prediction mode)
Claims 12-14, 17-18 and 20-22 relate to decoding and transmission methods that correspond to the encoding method of claims 1-3, 6-7 and 8 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claims 1-3, 6-7 and 9 above for the rejection of claims 12-14, 17-18 and 20-22 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claim 12 Chien discloses decoding and transmission (Chien Fig. 1 and par. 28 note transmission further note Fig. 3 and pars 99-112 for decoding).
Claims 4-5 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien in view of Xu and in further view of Kondo et al (2004/0086044).
In regard to claims 4, 5, 15 and 16 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claims 2 and 13 above. Chien discloses scaling motion vector candidates according to lists L0 and L1 (Chien pars 68-70 and 118-120). It is noted that Chien does not disclose details of scaling both L0 and L1 motion vectors from a single motion vector of a collocated CU.
However, Kondo discloses a direct mode motion vector which is determined by:
[claims 5 and 16] for a bi-predicted motion vector of the collocated CU the L0 motion vector and the L1 motion vector are both scaled from an L0 motion vector of the collocated CU in response to the collocated CU being from an L1 reference picture list and the current picture being a non-low delay picture (Kondo Figs. 7A&7B and pars 90-113 note for a current CU (block a) a collocated CU (block b) is determined in an L1 reference frame (picture P9 or B7 respectively), the L0 motion vector (motion vector c) of the collocated CU (block b) is scaled to determine both the L0 and L1 motion vectors (motion vector d and e respectively) of the current CU (block a), further note the use of forward prediction to a future reference picture indicates that the picture is not coded in a low-delay mode); and
[claims 4 and 15] for a bi-predicted motion vector of the collocated CU, the L0 motion vector and the L1 motion vector are both scaled form an L1 motion vector of the collocated CU in response to the collocated CU being from an L0 reference picture list and the current picture being a non-low delay picture (Kondo par. 154-155 note for collocated CU in an L0 reference picture (collocated block in a backward reference B picture) the L0 and L1 motion vectors of a current CU (motion vectors obtained by scaling) are scaled from an L1 motion vector (forward motion vector) of the L0 collocated CU (collocated block), also note Fig. 7-8 for an illustrations of direct mode scaling).
It is therefore considered obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the advantage of incorporating direct mode motion vectors as taught by Kondo in the motion vector predictors of Chien in view of Xu in order to avoid the need to transmit motion vector information as suggested by Kondo (Kondo par. 155).
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 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 JEREMIAH CHARLES HALLENBECK-HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-5248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/JEREMIAH C HALLENBECK-HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481