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 .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200228815 A1 (Xu; provisional specification 62/791,700)
Chen, X., et al.; "Decoder-Side Motion Vector Refinement Based on Bilateral Template Matching;" Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11; October 2016 (for claim 5 just above section 3) (ChenX)
US 20180184117 A1 (Chen)
US 20200169748 A1 (for GBi equal and unequal weight are evaluated {para 74}; DMVR for equal weight {para 126} )
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Rejection made under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claims.
Double patenting rejection has been withdrawn in view of approved terminal disclaimer.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant argued in substance that the amended limitation is not taught by the prior art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. ChenX teaches when affine or sub-CU merge candidate is selected for one CU, the DMVR is not applied (Section 2, last two lines), these teaches that pre-condition to DMVR application is these two . For the predefined condition check application cited para 77 of original specification. Para 77 “when current block is eligible for DMVR coding based on a plurality or pre-defined conditions” , which is similar to this.
It appears applicant also argues that Xu’s checking enabling or disabling DMVR does not teaches “determining whether to disable an application or DMVR”. Examiner disagreed and argues that Xu’s checking teaches that DMVR application determination have to be based on these.
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 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of ChenX.
Regarding Claim 1. Xu teaches A method for video encoding, comprising: obtaining a plurality of blocks divided from a video picture, wherein each of the plurality of blocks is in an intra prediction mode or an inter prediction mode [(para 80, 53)] determining whether weighted prediction is enabled for a current block, in the plurality of blocks to obtain a first determination result, and determining whether different weights are used when averaging list 0 predicted samples and list 1 predicted samples for the current block to obtain a second determination result: [((provisional application page 18, step a.viii DMVR is disabled if GBi is used DMVR is disabled if weighted prediction is used: as can be seen from section 2.1.6 and 2.2 both these methods uses weighted prediction using different weights {GBi} and averaging from list-0 and list-1 samples: different weights are )] : determining whether to disable an application of Decoder-side Motion Vector Refinement (DMVR) on the current block based on at least one of the two determinations when DMVR is able to be applied in a current picture that comprises the current block: and forming a bitstream based on prediction mode information of the current block, wherein the plurality of pre-defined conditions comprise: the current block is not coded as affine mode:[( page 18 step a.vi; DMVR is regarded disabled if the mode is affine mode; that is if the affine mode there’s no need for further analysis in deciding whether DMVR to disable or not )]
Xu does not explicitly show the pre-defined conditions comprise: the current block is not coded as sub-block merge mode
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, ChenX teaches the pre-defined conditions comprise: the current block is not coded as sub-block merge mode [(ChenX section 2 last two lines, indicates for determination of DMVR enabling is related to)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because, such modification would provide more options and simplification.
Xu additionally teaches w.r.t. claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether to disable the application of DMVR on the current block based on at least one of the two determinations comprises: disabling the application of DMVR on the current block when the weighted prediction is determined to be enabled for the current block. : [( Xu provisional application page 18, step a.viii DMVR is disabled if GBi is used DMVR is disabled if weighted prediction is used: as can be seen from section 2.1.6 and 2.2 both these methods uses weighted prediction using different weights {GBi} and averaging from list-0 and list-1 samples: different weights are )] :
Xu additionally teaches w.r.t. claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether to disable the application of DMVR on the current block based on at least one of the two determinations comprises: disabling the application of DMVR on the current block when different weights are determined to be used when averaging the list 0 predicted samples and the list 1 predicted samples for the current block. : [( Xu provisional application page 18, step a.viii DMVR is disabled if GBi is used DMVR is disabled if weighted prediction is used: as can be seen from section 2.1.6 and 2.2 both these methods uses weighted prediction using different weights {GBi} and averaging from list-0 and list-1 samples: different weights are )] :
Xu additionally teaches w.r.t. claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining whether to disable the application of DMVR on the current block based on at least one of the two determinations comprises: disabling the application of DMVR on the current block when the weighted prediction is determined to be enabled for the current block and at the same time different weights are determined to be used when averaging the list 0 predicted samples and the list 1 predicted samples for the current block. : [( Xu provisional application page 18, step a.viii DMVR is disabled if GBi is used DMVR is disabled if weighted prediction is used: as can be seen from section 2.1.6 and 2.2 both these methods uses weighted prediction using different weights {GBi} and averaging from list-0 and list-1 samples: different weights are )] :
Xu additionally teaches w.r.t. claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pre-defined conditions further comprise: the current block is coded as merge mode and a selected merge candidate is a regular merge candidate. . [(Xu provisional page 18 number iii. DMVR is regarded as enabled if the block is in merge mode and have two motion vectors pointing two different reference pictures and none of the reference pictures is current picture, this means normal merge candidate: also see section 2.1 & 2.3)]
Xu additionally teaches w.r.t. claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pre-defined conditions further comprise: an area of the current block is equal to or greater than 64. [(Xu provisional page 16-17 step 4a)]
Regarding Claims 7-18: See the analysis of claims 1-6 and note Xu additionally teaches A computing device comprising: one or more processors: a non-transitory storage coupled to the one or more processors: and a plurality of programs stored in the non-transitory storage that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computing device to perform acts of claim 1[(para 196)]
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