DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 11/15/2024, wherein claims 1-8 have been examined and are pending.
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “The method of claim 1” in claim 3 should read “The method of claim 2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
1. Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (U.S. 2021/0321102) hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claims 1 and 7-8, Chen discloses a method of decoding an image, a method of encoding an image, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium for storing a bitstream generated by a method of encoding an image, the method comprising:
dividing a current block into a first partition and a second partition (Chen [0030], [0037]: partition a current block into a first sub-block and a second sub-block);
deriving motion information candidates of the current block; and generating a first motion information sub-list for the first partition and a second motion information sub-list for the second partition; obtaining first motion information for the first partition from the first motion information sub-list; and obtaining second motion information for the second partition from the second motion information sub-list, wherein each of the first motion information sub-list and the second motion information sub-list is generated by inserting at least one of motion information candidates (Chen [0125]: a second candidate motion information list including a plurality of candidate motion information is constructed for the first sub-block, i.e. first motion information sub-list. A third candidate motion information list including a plurality of candidate motion information is constructed for the second sub-block, i.e. second motion information sub-list. One candidate motion information is selected from the second candidate motion information list as the first target motion information of the first sub-block, i.e. obtaining first motion information. One candidate motion information is selected from the third motion information list as a second target motion information of the second sub-block, i.e. obtaining second motion information; Figs. 5B-5C, [0128]-[0129]: neighboring blocks on the upper side of the current block which include blocks 2, 3 and 5 can be first candidate blocks for the first sub-block and hence in the second candidate list. Neighboring blocks on the left side of the current block which include blocks 1, 4 and 5 can be second candidate blocks for the second sub-block and hence in the third candidate lists).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining whether to generate the first and second motion information sub-lists or not, wherein when it is determined not to generate the first and second motion information sub-lists, based on a unified motion information list, which is generated by inserting the motion information candidates, both the first motion information for the first partition and the second motion information for the second partition are derived (Chen [0087]: the current block can be partitioned into first sub-block and second sub-block with a first diagonal method or a second diagonal method; [0144]: if the current block is partitioned with second diagonal method, a second candidate motion information list for first sub-block and third candidate motion information list for second sub-block can be constructed. Hence, determine whether to generate first and second sub-lists or not. If the current block is partitioned with first diagonal method, the first candidate motion information list can be constructure and the first target motion information and the second target motion information are determined based on the first candidate motion information list, i.e. unified motion information list, as in implementation 5 in [0094]-[0096]. The first candidate motion information list can include blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as in [0096], Fig. 5A. Hence, unified motion information list and both first motion information for the first partition and second motion information for the second partition are derived).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Chen discloses wherein whether to generate the first and second motion information sub-lists or not is implicitly determined at a decoding device with information on the current block (Chen [0087], [0091]: the current block can be partitioned into first sub-block and second sub-block with a first diagonal method or a second diagonal method based on rate diction cost of current block corresponding to partition with first diagonal method or second diagonal method).
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 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.
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 AIA 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 2 and 3 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen et al. (U.S. 2021/0321102) hereinafter Chen, in view of Ye et al. (U.S. 2019/0246118) hereinafter Ye.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein even though a motion vector of a first motion information candidate is not the same as a motion vector of a second motion information candidate, the second motion information candidate is not added to the first motion information sub-list or the second motion information sub-list in response to a difference between the motion vector of the first motion information candidate and the motion vector of the second motion information candidate being less than or equal to a threshold value.
However, Ye discloses wherein even though a motion vector of a first motion information candidate is not the same as a motion vector of a second motion information candidate, the second motion information candidate is not added to the first motion information sub-list or the second motion information sub-list in response to a difference between the motion vector of the first motion information candidate and the motion vector of the second motion information candidate being less than or equal to a threshold value (Ye [0171]: pruning process for comparing a new candidate vector with an existing candidate vector. When a magnitude of a difference between a new candidate vector and existing candidate vector is above a threshold, the new vector is added to a candidate list. Otherwise, the new vector is not added to the candidate list. Hence, not adding a second motion information candidate to a candidate list in response to a different between the second motion vector and a first motion vector being less than or equal to a threshold value)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Chen, and further incorporate having wherein even though a motion vector of a first motion information candidate is not the same as a motion vector of a second motion information candidate, the second motion information candidate is not added to the first motion information sub-list or the second motion information sub-list in response to a difference between the motion vector of the first motion information candidate and the motion vector of the second motion information candidate being less than or equal to a threshold value, as taught by Ey, to avoid adding a redundant or similar candidate to the candidate list (Ye [0167]).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the threshold value is a value pre-defined in a decoding device.
However, Ye discloses disclose wherein the threshold value is a value pre-defined in a decoding device (Ye [0168]: a decoder can perform the comparing of the candidates for pruning; [0169], [0176]: the threshold can be predefined (e.g. hard coded) or signaled at sequence parameter set level, picture parameter set level).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Chen, and further incorporate having wherein the threshold value is a value pre-defined in a decoding device, as taught by Ey, to avoid adding a redundant or similar candidate to the candidate list (Ye [0167]).
Claim 6 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Chen et al. (U.S. 2021/0321102) hereinafter Chen, in view of Takehara et al. (U.S. 2014/0044171) hereinafter Takehara.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the information represents a size of the current block.
However, Takehara discloses wherein the information represents a size of the current block (Takehara [0329]: generate a third vector predictor candidate list combining first and second vector predictor candidate lists by comparison result between a size of the current block and a predetermined threshold. Hence, generating a unified candidate list based on information of a size of the current block).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Chen, and further incorporate having wherein the information represents a size of the current block, as taught by Takehara, to enhance accuracy of motion vector prediction and encode efficiency (Takehara [0009]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0626. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHLEEN V NGUYEN/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2486