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 .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230217013 A1 (hereinafter Nien)
US 20220256189 A1 (hereinafter Lee)
US 20210281855 A1 (hereinafter Skupin)
US 20240223797 A1 (Chen)
US 20240406436 A1 (para 1674-75; BVD sorted based on matching cost)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Rejection made under 35 USC § 112 is maintained, as the amendment claim does not rectify the issues addressed before.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant argued in substance that the claimed invention has two steps ordering and the prior art have one step ordering.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Nien teaches two steps ordering/reordering.
In the second step Nien teaches reordering according to cost value
Para 99 last 10 lines; “determine an arrangement of the block vector differences based on the candidate cost values and reorder the block vector differences based on the arrangement.”; Para 102 first line “The block vector differences may be reordered in the ascending order of the candidate cost values”. Cost includes SAD {para 79}
Before this there is first step, when ordering/reordering is done in arbitrary rules, Para 100 “Before the arrangement is determined based on the candidate cost values, ……….. the block vector differences may also be ordered based on arbitrary rules when the specific block vector predictor is selected in advance.”
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
Claim Objection (Allowable Subject Matter)
Claim 7 is 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 and the 112b rejection is overcome.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “ the set of BVD candidates are the first 1/N ……”. The “N” is not defined. Examiner assumed N is 2, 4 or 8, as claimed in claim 4.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “ the set of BVD candidates are the first 1/N ……”. The “N” is not defined. Examiner assumed N is 2, 4 or 8, as claimed in claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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 1-4, 6, 8-9, 13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nien.
Regarding claim 1. Nien teaches a method for video processing, comprising
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, that a first prediction mode is applied to the current video block [ Para 3, 6 IBC merge, IBC MMVD e mode etc. used by video coding {para 2} coding is conversation of block to bitstream {para 185} ]
reordering, in the first prediction mode, at least a first set of block vector difference (BVD) candidates of multiple BVD candidates corresponding to a first base candidate according to at least one criterion [Para 100 “Before the arrangement is determined based on the candidate cost values, ……….. the block vector differences may also be ordered based on arbitrary rules when the specific block vector predictor is selected in advance.” Such as direction order etc.]
deriving, based on the reordered BVD candidates, a block vector for the current video block [ Para 197; block vector predictor is selected based on adjusted difference list]
and performing the conversion based on the block vector [(performed during decoding/encoding {para 59, 185})] .
wherein deriving, based on the reordered BVD candidates, a block vector for the current video block comprises
determining a set of BVD candidates from the reordered BVD candidates based on ranking of sum of absolute differences (SAD) costs [ Para 99 last 10 lines; “determine an arrangement of the block vector differences based on the candidate cost values and reorder the block vector differences based on the arrangement.”; Para 102 first line “The block vector differences may be reordered in the ascending order of the candidate cost values”. Cost includes SAD {para 79} ]
and determining the block vector for the current video block based on the set of BVD candidates. [(para 197)]
Regarding claim 18. Nien teaches 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 [ please see Para 34-35 and see analysis of claim 1 above for the rest of the limitations]
determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, that a first prediction mode is applied to the current video block
reorder, in the first prediction mode, at least a first set of block vector difference (BVD) candidates of multiple BVD candidates corresponding to a first base candidate according to at least one criterion
derive, based on the reordered BVD candidates, a block vector for the current video block
and perform the conversion based on the block vector. [(see analysis of claim 1 above)]
Regarding claim 19. Nien teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to [ see Para 34-35 and see analysis of claim 1 above for the rest of the limitations]
determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, that a first prediction mode is applied to the current video block;
reorder, in the first prediction mode, at least a first set of block vector difference (BVD) candidates of multiple BVD candidates corresponding to a first base candidate according to at least one criterion;
derive, based on the reordered BVD candidates, a block vector for the current video block;
and perform the conversion based on the block vector . [(see analysis of claim 1 above)]
Regarding Claim 20: See analysis of claim 1 and para 35 of Nien
Regarding claim 2. Nien teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in the first prediction mode, prediction samples of the current video block are derived from blocks of sample values of a same video region as determined by the block vector. [(para 4, same frame)]
Regarding claim 3. Nien teaches the method of claim 1, wherein reordering, in the first prediction mode, at least a first set of block vector difference (BVD) candidates of multiple BVD candidates corresponding to a first base candidate according to at least one criterion comprises
reordering a predefined ratio of the multiple BVD candidates
or reordering a predefined number BVD candidates among the multiple BVD candidates, [(para 106; at least one of the alternatives is taught)]
wherein the predefined ratio corresponding to the first 1/N of the multiple BVD candidates or a subgroup, and N is an integer greater than 0, wherein N is 2, 4, or 8.
Regarding claim 4. Nien teaches the method of claim 1, wherein reordering, in the first prediction mode, at least a first set of block vector difference (BVD) candidates of multiple BVD candidates corresponding to a first base candidate according to at least one criterion comprises
reordering the multiple BVD candidates together [(para 106; at least one of the alternatives is taught)] or
reordering the multiple BVD candidates in a form of subgroup,
wherein reordering the multiple BVD candidates in a form of subgroup comprises
reordering a predefined ratio of a subgroup of the multiple BVD candidates, or reordering a predefined number of BVD candidates among a subgroup of the multiple BVD candidates, wherein the predefined ratio corresponding to the first 1/N of the multiple BVD candidates or a subgroup, and N is an integer greater than 0, wherein N is 2, 4, or 8, or wherein the predefined ratio is corresponding to a ratio of a maximum number of BVD candidates corresponding to the first base candidate.
Nien teaches, with respect to claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein determining a set of BVD candidates from the reordered BVD candidates based on sum of absolute differences (SAD) costs comprises
determining the set of BVD candidates from the reordered BVD candidates based on ranking of template matching SAD costs, wherein the set of BVD candidates are the first 1/N with the lowest template matching SAD costs among the reordered BVD candidates. [(see para 101 teaches 2 or 4 from 8; first reordered according to motion vector difference direction {para 190} then based on template matching cost which includes SAD {para 79)]
Nien teaches, with respect to claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein determining a set of BVD candidates from the reordered BVD candidates based on sum of absolute differences (SAD) costs comprises
selecting N BVD candidates from M BVD candidates corresponding to the first base candidate, wherein N is an integer greater than 0, and M represents a maximum number of the BVD candidates corresponding to the first base candidate. [(Fig.3 steps 330, 340 and 360 and para 71 & 82; selected from candidate list capacity. The capacity teaches M)]
Nien teaches, with respect to claim 9. The method of claim 8, wherein N is equal to a number of the valid BVD candidates for the first base candidate [(motion vector difference are validated {para 92-91})] .
Nien teaches, with respect to claim 13. The method of claim 8, wherein only a valid BVD candidate is eligible for being selected to perform at least one of
a reordering process, a sum of absolute transformed differences (SATD) process, or a rate-distortion (RD) process. [(invalid BVD are not used {para 92})]
Nien teaches, with respect to claim 16. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream. [(performed during decoding/encoding {para 59, 185})] .
Nien teaches, with respect to claim 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream. [(performed during decoding/encoding {para 59, 185})] .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 10. Nien does not explicitly show N is different for different base candidates
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Lee teaches N is different for different base candidates [(Lee The block vector candidate list may not be shared between upper and lower partition of same block {para 323} i.e. different N. Each partition indicates a different base candidates {para 332, 326})]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Lee additionally teaches with regards to claim 11. The method of claim 8, wherein N is same for different base candidates [(Lee The block vector candidate list is shared between upper and lower partition of same block {para 333-334}. Each partition indicates a different base candidates {para 332, 326})]
.
Lee additionally teaches with regards to claim 12. The method of claim 8, wherein N is determined based on a predefined ratio of the maximum number of BVD candidates corresponding to the first base candidate. [(reject with Lee)]
Nien in view of Lee additionally teaches with regards to claim 15. The method of claim 5, wherein determining the block vector for the current video block based on the set of BVD candidates comprises
determining block vector difference information corresponding to the first base candidate based on the set of BVD candidates [ Para 84 ]
and determining the block vector for the current video block based on at least one base candidate and corresponding block vector difference information, the at least one base candidate comprising the first base candidate [ Para 84 ], wherein the at least one base candidate comprises a second base candidate, and multiple BVD candidates corresponding to the second base candidate are not reordered for deriving block vector difference information corresponding to the second base candidate. [(Lee The block vector candidate list is shared between upper and lower partition of same block {para 333-334}. Each partition indicates a different base candidates {para 332, 326})]
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien in view of Skupin.
Regarding Claim 14. Nien teaches validity of BVD candidate is cheeked to be eligible for being selected to perform at least one of
a reordering process, a sum of absolute transformed differences (SATD) process, or a RD process. [ Para 92 Nien invalid when vector difference exceeds a boundary]
Nien does not teach clipping at least one component of an invalid BVD candidate into a reference region, wherein, the clipped BVD candidate is eligible
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Skupin teaches clipping at least one component of an invalid BVD candidate into a reference region, wherein, the clipped BVD candidate is eligible [(para 173-174)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts to reduce motion vector cost.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nien in view of Chen.
Regarding Claim 5. Nien teaches one index of 0~N-1 is indicated in the bitstream to indicate information of a BVD candidate, N being an integer greater than 0 [ Para 107]
Nien does not teach only one index indicate both displacement magnitude information and direction information of a BVD
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Chen teaches only one index indicate both displacement magnitude information and direction information of a BVD
[(para 218)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts to reduce overhead data by combining multiple information into one index.
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights