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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is ambiguous because the claim depends on claim 2, yet
it is not clear whether the video encoding method steps recited in claim 2 are required as part of the “apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to transmit a bitstream generated according to the video encoding method of claim 2.” because “configured to transmit a bitstream, generated according to the video encoding method of claim 2” appears to simply mean that the apparatus is capable of transmitting a bitstream generated according to the video encoding method of claim 2. It is not clear how the apparatus comprising the at least one processor is limited by the transmission of the bitstream generated according to the video encoding method of claim 2. Further, the “transmit” or transmission and the generation of a bitstream is generally separate from each other, especially, there is no specific limitations that connect the transmitting and the generation of the bitstream. For the purpose of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as “an apparatus comprising at least one processor capable of transmitting a bitstream.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0349588 A1 (“Chen”) in view of US 2022/0053196 A1 (“Jang”).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a video decoding method comprising: obtaining prediction mode information of inter prediction with respect to a current block (e.g. see prediction information syntax elements entropy decoded by 302 in Fig. 4; for example, syntax elements indicate the current block is inter-predicted, paragraphs [0100]-[0101]); determining a prediction mode of the current block, based on the prediction mode information (e.g. see affine mode, paragraphs [0100]-[0101] and [0108], also see AMVP, skip and merge modes, paragraph [0107]); when the prediction mode of the current block is an affine mode (e.g. see affine mode, paragraphs [0100]-[0101] and [0108]), determining a motion vector precision of the current block (e.g. see motion vector precisions, paragraphs [0108], [0115], [0120]-[0121]); when the prediction mode of the current block is not the affine mode (e.g. see AMVP, skip and merge modes, paragraph [0107]), determining the motion vector precision of the current block as a 1/4 pixel (e.g. see ¼-pel precision, paragraphs [0107], [0115], [0137], [0148]); when the motion vector precision is a 1/4 pixel, determining that the motion vector is represented using 16 bits (e.g. see motion vectors signaled and/or derived at multiple different motion vector precisions (e.g., 4-pel, 1-pel, ¼-pel, 1/16-pel, etc.) and stored in one or more motion vector bit-depths (e.g., 16 bits, 18 bits, 24 bits, etc.), paragraph [0115], and see for AMVP, skip, and merge modes, motion vectors are signaled in ¼-pel precision, paragraph [0107], and see using 16 bits to store motion vector for effective range of [-8192.00, 8191.75], paragraphs [0137], [0148]); when the motion vector precision is 1/16 pixel, determining that the motion vector is represented using 18 bits (e.g. see motion vectors signaled and/or derived at multiple different motion vector precisions (e.g., 4-pel, 1-pel, ¼-pel, 1/16-pel, etc.) and stored in one or more motion vector bit-depths (e.g., 16 bits, 18 bits, 24 bits, etc.), paragraph [0115], and see affine mode, paragraphs [0100]-[0101] and [0108], and see 1/16-pel precision, paragraphs [0108]; also see determine the motion vector bit-depth to store motion vectors based on a specified motion vector precision, paragraph [0120], in one example, the specified motion vector precision is the high-precision motion vector precision (e.g., 1/16-pel MV precision)… in this example, the motion vector bit-depth may be a fixed number (e.g., 18 bits), paragraph [0121]) and performing the inter prediction on the current block, based on the motion vector (e.g. see prediction processing unit 304 including motion compensation unit 316 in Fig. 4 for inter prediction, paragraphs [0100]-[0101]).
Although Chen discloses when the prediction mode of the current block is an affine mode, determining a motion vector precision of the current block, it is noted Chen differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose as a 1/16 pixel. Jang however, teaches when the prediction mode of the current block is an affine mode, determining a motion vector precision of the current block as a 1/16 pixel (e.g. see in the case of using a motion vector of 1/16 pel precision like affine prediction is used, 18 bits is required to express motion ranges of 4K and 8K images, paragraphs [0091], [0095]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Chen and Jang before him/her, to modify the Storage of high precision motion vectors in video coding of Chen with the teachings of Jang in order to increase image coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites analogous limitations to the claim above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Jang teaches a method for transmitting a bitstream, the method comprising: generating the bitstream by the video encoding method of claim 2 (e.g. see claim 2 recites analogous limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for the same premise, see mapping of claim 1), and transmitting the bitstream to a receiver (e.g. see at least Fig. 1 of Chen illustrating the transmission of a bitstream, e.g. see encoder, e.g. 200 in Fig. 3, that transmits an output bitstream to a decoder).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to transmit a bitstream generated according to the video encoding method of claim 2 (e.g. see encoder, e.g. 200 in Fig. 3, that transmits an output bitstream to a decoder; based on the interpretation as noted above, an encoder capable of transmitting a bitstream meet the limitations, which is why this claim was not necessarily rejected as 103 as similar to claims 1-2 and 4 above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 9-11 of the Remarks that the prior art do not teach “when the motion vector precision is 1/4 pixel, determining that the motion vector is represented using 16 bits; when the motion vector precision is 1/16 pixel, determining that the motion vector is represented using 18 bits” because Chen and Jang merely “provided technical background explaining the relationship between the motion vector range and the number of bits used for representation, and do not disclose or suggest determining the number of bits used to represent a motion vector based on the motion vector precision.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen, in paragraph [0115], specifically discloses that motion vectors signaled and/or derived at multiple different motion vector precisions (e.g., 4-pel, 1-pel, ¼-pel, 1/16-pel, etc.) and stored in one or more motion vector bit-depths (e.g., 16 bits, 18 bits, 24 bits, etc.), and further, in paragraph [0120], discloses to determine the motion vector bit-depth to store motion vectors based on a specified motion vector precision. It is noted that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no difficulty recognizing to use 16 bits to represent a motion vector when precision is 1/4 pixel and use 18 bits to represent a motion vector when precision is 1/16 pixel in order to maintain the same effective range, which the applicant appears to agree based on applicant’s own analysis of Chen (see last paragraph of page 9).
Further, the argument about the prior art not having “a specific rule for selecting the number of bits used to represent a motion vector based on the precision” is not persuasive because the claims do not recite any specific rules.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0077111 A1, Chuang et al., Method and apparatus of motion-vector rounding unification for video coding system
US 2021/0203947 A1, He et al., Adaptive motion vector precision for affine motion model based video coding
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 FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights