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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Video Decoding Method, and Video Encoding Method and Apparatus Involving Determination of Motion Vector Range.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it doesn’t provide a concise statement about the claimed invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-3 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 1, the limitations “determining a range of the motion vector to be 16 bits” in lines 10-11 and “determining the range of the motion vector to be 18 bits” in lines 12-13 are not clear because a range of motion vector is typically expressed in pel or pixel units from a minimum value to a maximum value, while bits include a bit with a value of 0 or 1. Claim 2 has similar limitations and is therefore rejected for the same reasons. Claim 3 depends on claim 2 and is rejected because of its dependency. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are interpreted as “determining a range of the motion vector represented in 16 bits” and “determining the range of the motion vector represented in 18 bits”, respectively.
Also, regarding claim 3, although the claim recites “[a] device for transmitting a bitstream …”, the claim is ambiguous because there appears to be no specific structure of the device recited in the claim, so its metes and bound is not clear. Further, it is also not clear whether the video encoding method steps recited in claim 2 are required as part of the device for transmitting the bitstream because "for transmitting a bitstream" is intended use and "transmitting" 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 (not to mention that there is no "bitstream" in claim 2). For the purpose of examination, claim 3 is interpreted as "a device capable of transmitting a bitstream".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a device that do not have a physical or tangible form.
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 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 a range of the motion vector to be 16 bits (e.g. see ¼-pel precision and 16 bits representing an effective range of motion vector, paragraphs [0107], [0115], [0137], [0148]); when the motion vector precision is a 1/16 pixel (e.g. see affine mode, paragraphs [0100]-[0101] and [0108], and see 1/16-pel precision, paragraphs [0108], [0115], [0120]-[0121]), determining the range of the motion vector to be 18 bits (e.g. see 18 bits representing an effective range of motion vector, paragraphs [0108], [0115], [0120]-[0121]); and performing the inter prediction on the current block, based on the determined range of 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.
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 a device for transmitting a bitstream, the bitstream generated by 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 above).
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
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