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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 5, and 8-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because they relate to newly amended limitations for which new art Chung is provided to show how the disclosure of color format conversion of Solovyev is a transformation as described in the updated rejection below.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solovyev et al (2020/0351493) with Chung et al (2018/0082396) used to explain term meanings.
In regard to claim 1 Solovyev discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
obtaining, for a conversion between a current block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a first motion vector for a target video block (Solovyev pars 208-212 also note pars 6-8 inter prediction using merge or AMVP mode, in which a predicted motion vector is obtained for the current block), the target video block being determined by applying a sample adjusting process to a plurality of samples of the current video block (Solovyev Fig. 1 and pars 98-99 note video data is ‘adjusted’ using trimming, color format conversion, color correction and/or denoising by pre-processor 18);
adjusting the first MV based on a second MV generated for the target video block (Solovyev pars 6-8 and 208-212 note in AMVP mode a first, constructed, motion vector is adjusted using a second, motion estimated, motion vector, the adjustment based on the difference between the two motion vectors); and
performing the conversion based on the adjusted first MV (Solovyev Figs. 1-3 and generally pars 93-176 for ‘conversion’ or encoding and decoding of a current block, particularly note pars 153-157 and 166 for the use of motion vectors in the conversion).
Solovyev discloses a sample adjusting process of applying a color format conversion such as conversion between RGB and YCbCr color formats (Solovyev pars. 98-99). It is noted that Solovyev does not explicitly disclose that the color format conversion is considered to be one of reording, flipping, shifting rotation or transforming the samples of the current video block. However Chung discloses a that performing conversion between color formats such as converting between RGB and YCbCr is a type of transformation of sample data (Chung par. 30 note color transformation circuits).
Thus one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would recognize that the color format conversion of Solvoyev is a sample adjustment process that comprises a transformation as required by claim 1. See MPEP 2131.01 (II) for the use of a secondary reference under 35 U.S.C. 102 to explain the meaning of terms used in a primary reference.
In regard to claim 3 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Solovyev further discloses that the information regarding how to generate the second MV is dependent on a prediction scheme sued for coding the target block (Solovyev pars 208-212 and 6-8 note generation of the second, motion estimated, motion vector is dependent upon selection of the AMVP mode as opposed to a merge mode also note par. 150-152 use of an intra prediction mode which does not use motion vectors).
In regard to claims 16 and 17 Solovyev further discloses that converting includes encoding and/or decoding (Solovyev Figs 1-3 note encoding and decoding)
Claims 18-19 and 21 describe a method, apparatus and computer readable medium storing instructions which perform process steps corresponding to claim 1 above. Refer to the statements made in regard to claim 1 above for the rejection of claims 18-19 and 21 which will not be repeated here for brevity. In particular regard to claims 18-19 Solovyev further discloses an apparatus including a processor and a non-transitory computer readable memory with instructions for implementing the claimed method steps (Solovyev Fig. 1B and par. 113).
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) 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solovyev in view of Li et al (2021/0044824).
In regard to claim 4 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above.
It is noted that Solovyev does not disclose details of conditions for generating the second MV. However, Li discloses an affine AMVP mode in which the generation of a second motion vector depends on both a height and width dimension of the target video bock (Li pars 120-130 note affine AMVP mode particularly note par. 127 note affine AVMP mode, and hence its associated motion vectors, are not used when the block has a width or height less than 16).
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 an affine AMVP mode as taught by LI in the prediction modes of Solovyev in order to model zoom, rotation, perspective and other irregular motions as suggested by LI (LI par. 113).
In regard to claim 6 refer to the statements made in the rejection of claim 1 above. Solovyev further discloses that the second MV is generated by adding an offset to the first MV (Solovyev pars 6-8 note the motion vector difference as an offset added to the motion vector predictor to obtain the estimated motion vector). LI further discloses that the second MV is generated based on coding information and a prediction scheme of a neighboring video block of the current block (LI pars 127-128 note determining the affine AVMP mode based on whether neighboring blocks are codded in an affine mode, and whether the neighboring blocks use the same reference picture as the current block).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solovyev in view of Li as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Rusanovskyy et al (2020/0366924).
In regard to claim 7 it is noted that neither Solovyev nor LI disclose details of motion vector precision. However, Rusanovskyy discloses an AMVR technique in which the offset is the same as a precision of the first MV (Rusanovskyy pars 120-122 particularly note par. 122 motion vector predictors are rounded to have the same precision as MVD values).
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 incorporating the AMVR techniques taught by Rusanovskyy in the invention of Solovyev in view of LI in order to allow CU motion to be coded with different precisions as suggested by Rusanovskyy (Rusanovskyy par. 120).
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
Prosecution Insights