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 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-5, 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oh et al. US 2018/0152710.
As to claim 1, Oh teaches a method of decoding an image, the method comprising: constructing a merge candidate list of a current block, [fig. 3; fig. 12; abstract; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0114-0116] the merge candidate list comprising at least one of a spatial merge candidate, a temporal merge candidate or a derived merge candidate, the derived merge candidate being generated by using two merge candidates already included in the merge candidate list; [fig. 3; fig. 12; ¶ 0056; ¶ 0075; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103] in response to a merge mode with prediction unit partitioning being applied to the current block, selecting first and second merge candidates from the merge candidate list of the current block; [fig. 3; fig. 12; abstract; ¶ 0050-0051; ¶ 0077; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103; ¶ 0114-0116] obtaining two motion information of the current block from the two merge candidates; [fig. 3; fig. 12; ¶ 0051; ¶ 0077; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103] and generating a prediction block of the current block based on the two motion information of the current block, wherein two pieces of index information are explicitly signaled for selecting the first and second merge candidates from the merge candidate list, [abstract; ¶ 0031-0033; ¶ 0052-0055; ¶ 0077; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103; ¶ 0105-0116] wherein one of the two pieces of index information is used to specify the first merge candidate in the merge candidate list, and wherein the other of the two pieces of index information is used to specify the second merge candidate in the merge candidate list. [¶ 0077; ¶ 0103]
As to claim 2, Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oh teaches wherein the prediction block of the current block is generated based on a first reference block specified by first motion information derived from the first merge candidate and a second reference block specified by second motion information of the derived from the second merge candidate. [¶ 0032; ¶ 0049-0052; ¶ 0102-0106]
As to claim 3, Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oh teaches wherein the first and second merge candidates are selected from a reduced merge candidate list, a number of merge candidates included in the reduced merge candidate list being smaller than a number of merge candidates included in the merge candidate list. [¶ 0058-0072; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0114-0117]
As to claim 4, Oh teaches the limitations of claim 3. Oh teaches wherein the number of merge candidates in the reduced merge candidate list is determined based on information representing a difference between the number of merge candidates in the reduced merge candidate list and the number of merge candidates included in the merge candidate list. [¶ 0058-0072; ¶ 0082-0084; ¶ 0115-0116]
As to claim 5, Oh teaches the limitations of claim 1. Oh teaches wherein after inserting at least one spatial merge candidate and the temporal merge candidate to the merge candidate list, the merge candidate list is updated based on a motion information candidate list, the motion information candidate list including motion information candidates derived from blocks decoded before the current block. [¶ 0007-0008; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0115-0117]
As to claim 8, Oh teaches a method of encoding an image, the method comprising: constructing a merge candidate list of a current block, [fig. 3; fig. 12; abstract; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0114-0116] the merge candidate list comprising at least one of a spatial merge candidate, a temporal merge candidate or a derived merge candidate, the derived merge candidate being generated by using two merge candidates already included in the merge candidate list; [fig. 3; fig. 12; ¶ 0056; ¶ 0075; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103] in response to a merge mode with prediction unit partitioning being applied to the current block, selecting first and second merge candidates from the merge candidate list of the current block; [fig. 3; fig. 12; abstract; ¶ 0050-0051; ¶ 0077; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103; ¶ 0114-0116] obtaining two motion information of the current block from the two merge candidates; [fig. 3; fig. 12; ¶ 0051; ¶ 0077; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103] and generating a prediction block of the current block based on the first and second motion information of the current block, wherein two pieces of index information are explicitly encoded for selecting the first and second merge candidates from the merge candidate list, [abstract; ¶ 0031-0033; ¶ 0052-0055; ¶ 0077; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103; ¶ 0105-0116] wherein one of the two pieces of index information is used to specify the first merge candidate in the merge candidate list, and wherein the other of the two pieces of index information is used to specify the second merge candidate in the merge candidate list. [¶ 0077; ¶ 0103]
As to claim 9, Oh teaches a method of transmitting compressed video data, method comprising: obtaining the compressed video data; [fig. 1; fig. 10; ¶ 0024; ¶ 0089] and transmitting the compressed video data, [fig. 1; fig. 10; ¶ 0024; ¶ 0089; ¶ 0098] wherein obtaining the compressed video data comprises: constructing a merge candidate list of a current block, [fig. 3; fig. 12; abstract; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0114-0116] the merge candidate list comprising at least one of a spatial merge candidate, a temporal merge candidate or a derived merge candidate, the derived merge candidate being generated by using two merge candidates already included in the merge candidate list; [fig. 3; fig. 12; ¶ 0056; ¶ 0075; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103] in response to a merge mode with prediction unit partitioning being applied to the current block, selecting first and second merge candidates from the merge candidate list of the current block; [fig. 3; fig. 12; abstract; ¶ 0050-0051; ¶ 0077; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103; ¶ 0114-0116] obtaining two motion information of the current block from the first and second merge candidates; [fig. 3; fig. 12; ¶ 0051; ¶ 0077; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103] and generating a prediction block of the current block based on the two motion information of the current block, wherein two pieces of index information are explicitly encoded for selecting the first and second merge candidates from the merge candidate list, [abstract; ¶ 0031-0033; ¶ 0052-0055; ¶ 0077; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0103; ¶ 0105-0116] wherein one of the two pieces of index information is used to specify the first merge candidate in the merge candidate list, and wherein the other of the two pieces of index information is used to specify the second merge candidate in the merge candidate list. [¶ 0077; ¶ 0103]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. US 2018/0152710 in view of Li et al. US 10,397,603.
As to claim 6, Oh teaches the limitations of claim 5.
Oh teaches wherein the merge candidate list of the current block is updated by adding at least one motion information candidate included in the motion information candidate list as a new merge candidate. [¶ 0007-0008; ¶ 0081-0086; ¶ 0115-0117]
Oh does not explicitly teach wherein, for two motion information candidates in the motion information candidate list, whether a motion information candidate is available as the new merge candidate or not is determined based on a result of a redundancy check with merge candidates in the merge candidate list, and wherein, for remaining motion information candidates excluding the two motion information candidates in the motion information candidate list, whether a motion information candidate is available as the new merge candidate or not is determined regardless of the result of the redundancy check with the merge candidates in the merge candidate list.
Li teaches wherein, for two motion information candidates in the motion information candidate list, whether a motion information candidate is available as the new merge candidate or not is determined based on a result of a redundancy check with merge candidates in the merge candidate list, [col. 22 lines 48-57; col. 24 lines 1-50] and wherein, for remaining motion information candidates excluding the two motion information candidates in the motion information candidate list, whether a motion information candidate is available as the new merge candidate or not is determined regardless of the result of the redundancy check with the merge candidates in the merge candidate list. [col. 22 lines 48-57; col. 24 lines 1-50]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Li with the teachings of Oh allowing for improved coding efficiency.
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 ANNER HOLDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571.272.7383. 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.
/ANNER HOLDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights