DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 01/26/2026, applicant amended claims 1, 6 and 18-20 and cancelled claim 5. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 4-6, 8-11 and 15-16 remains allowable if rewritten.
Objections to the Drawings
The examiner thanks applicant for the correction to the drawings and therefore the objection is withdrawn.
Objections to the Specification
The examiner thanks applicant for the correction to the title and therefore the objection is withdrawn.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Of note, the amendments add an additional alternative while removing another. The examiner believes, which will be reflected in the rejections Zhang also teaches the modification alternative by performing rounding and filtering operations to the MV candidates (Paragraphs [0495]-[0498]).
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)(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) 1-3, 7, 12-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., (US 20220239899 A1) referred to as ZHANG hereinafter.
The applied reference has common inventors with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, ZHANG shows a method of video processing (Paragraph [0100], 'generate encoded video data'), comprising:
applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit (See FIG. 2), a processing procedure to at least one motion candidate in a motion candidate list (Paragraph [0152], i.e., pruning, which is being treated as an equivalent to refinement for examination. Alternatively, as discussed in paragraph [0144], template matching is also a relied-on technique for refinement.);
reordering at least one subgroup of motion candidates in the motion candidate list by applying a first reordering procedure to the motion candidate list after the processing procedure (Paragraph [0146]),
wherein the processing procedure comprises at least a motion modification by performing rounding and filtering operations to the MV candidates (Paragraphs [0495]-[0498]); and
performing the conversion based on the reordered motion candidates (See FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 2, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein motion candidates in the motion candidate list are divided into subgroups (Paragraph [0153]), and
wherein whether to (Paragraph [0154]) and/or an approach to reorder motion candidates in the first reordering procedure is dependent on the subgroups of the motion candidates (Paragraphs [0154]-[0155], 'based on a coding mode'), or wherein the processing procedure comprises a motion refinement process which is simplified, and wherein whether an above template or a left template is used depends on at least one of: a block width or a block height (Paragraph [0155], it stands to reason that if the 4 listed modes does not trigger subgrouping, that a simplification of refinement takes place implicitly.).
Regarding claim 3, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above, and further shows wherein a first subgroup of motion candidates in the motion candidate list is reordered (Paragraph [0155] discloses reordering.).
Regarding claim 7, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the number of motion candidates and/or which motion candidates are refined before the reordering is determined dynamically (Paragraph [0152], i.e., pruning, which is being treated as an equivalent to refinement for examination and takes place dynamically by nature, otherwise it would have been eliminated as a candidate from the outset.), and wherein a cost is determined for each motion candidate, and the motion candidates are ordered based on the cost (Paragraph [0182]).
Regarding claim 12, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein a cost in a refining process of a motion candidate list for the video unit is generated, wherein the refining process comprises at least a template matching (At least paragraph(s) [0144], [0182-3], [0197], [0202]-[0206], and FIGs. 7-8 for discussion of template matching as a refinement tool.) and wherein a reordering process is applied to the motion candidate list using the cost (Paragraph [0182]).
Regarding claim 13, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 12 as applied above, and further shows wherein if the TM is included in the refining process, TM costs are reused in the reordering process (Paragraph [0182] describes directly using TM costs as a reordering tool.).
Regarding claim 14, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein a refining process and a reordering process are applied to a motion candidate in a motion candidate list, wherein in the refining process, the motion candidate is refined using a motion search approach (Paragraph [0114]).
Regarding claim 17, ZHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (See FIGs 2-3).
Regarding claim 18, ZHANG shows an apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to (Paragraph [0064]):
apply, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit (See FIG. 2), a processing procedure to at least one motion candidate in a motion candidate list (Paragraph [0152], i.e., pruning, which is being treated as an equivalent to refinement for examination. Alternatively, as discussed in paragraph [0144], template matching is also a relied-on technique for refinement.);
reorder at least one subgroup of motion candidates in the motion candidate list by applying a first reordering procedure to the motion candidate list after the processing procedure (Paragraph [0146]),
wherein the processing procedure comprises at least a motion modification by performing rounding and filtering operations to the MV candidates (Paragraphs [0495]-[0498]); and
perform the conversion based on the reordered motion candidates (See FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 19, ZHANG shows a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to (Paragraph [0068]):
apply, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit (See FIG. 2), a processing procedure to at least one motion candidate in a motion candidate list (Paragraph [0152], i.e., pruning, which is being treated as an equivalent to refinement for examination. Alternatively, as discussed in paragraph [0144], template matching is also a relied-on technique for refinement.);
reorder at least one subgroup of motion candidates in the motion candidate list by applying a first reordering procedure to the motion candidate list after the processing procedure (Paragraph [0146]),
wherein the processing procedure comprises at least a motion modification by performing rounding and filtering operations to the MV candidates (Paragraphs [0495]-[0498]); and
perform the conversion based on the reordered motion candidates (See FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 20, ZHANG shows a method of video processing (Paragraph [0100], 'generate encoded video data'), comprising:
applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit (See FIG. 2), a processing procedure to at least one motion candidate in a motion candidate list (Paragraph [0152], i.e., pruning, which is being treated as an equivalent to refinement for examination. Alternatively, as discussed in paragraph [0144], template matching is also a relied-on technique for refinement.);
reordering at least one subgroup of motion candidates in the motion candidate list by applying a first reordering procedure to the motion candidate list after the processing procedure (Paragraph [0146]),
wherein the processing procedure comprises at least a motion modification by performing rounding and filtering operations to the MV candidates (Paragraphs [0495]-[0498]); performing the conversion based on the reordered motion candidates (See FIG. 2); and
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Paragraph [0072]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 8-11 and 15-16 are 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.
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 JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 pm.
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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486