DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 11/25/2024, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and are examined as follows. The application is a continuation of 16/815,729, now U.S. Patent No. 11,290,722 B2 and 17/674,539, now U.S. Patent No. 12,192,472.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/17/2024, 06/24/2025, and 08/19/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s note
4. Claim 16 which reads “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprising…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 16 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by any prior art which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream. Please see details below.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321I or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,290,722 B2, hereinafter referred to as 722. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the foregoing claims of the instant application, where both relate to coding a video sequence using one of a 4:4:4 chroma format and a 4:2:2 chroma format. Instant Claims 1, 11, and 16 are found to be broader versions of patented Claims 1, 9, and 16 in 722 which do not include the limitation “wherein a maximum allowed transform size is the same for different color components, and wherein when encoding or decoding the video sequence using the 4:2:2 chroma format, a maximum vertical transform size is the same among different color components, and a maximum horizontal transform size for color components is half of a maximum horizontal transform size for luma components.”
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,192,472 B2, hereinafter referred to as 472. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims anticipate the foregoing claims of the instant application, where both relate to coding a video sequence using one of a 4:4:4 chroma format and a 4:2:2 chroma format. Instant Claims 1, 11, and 16 are found to be broader versions of patented Claims 1, 9, and 16 in 472 which do not include the limitation “wherein a maximum vertical transform size is the same among different color components, and wherein a maximum horizontal transform size for color components is half of a maximum horizontal transform size for luma components.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2020/0275118 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang, since this is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream (MPEP §2113). For the reasons discussed above in the examiner’s note, the storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 16 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang below which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Regarding claim 16, Wang teaches and/or suggests “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprising: encoding a video sequence using one of a 4:4:4 chroma format and a 4:2:2 chroma format; when the video sequence is being encoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format, copying an affine motion vector of one 4x4 luma block using an operation other than an averaging operation and associating the affine motion vector to a co-located 4x4 chroma block, and when the video sequence is being encoded using the 4:2:2 chroma format, associating each 4x4 chroma block with two 4x4 co-located luma blocks such that an affine motion vector of one 4x4 chroma block is an average of the motion vectors of the two co-located luma blocks.” [See for e.g. ¶0048 for storing encoded video data (i.e. bitstream) via a storage device. Also please note ¶0250] To help advance prosecution, it is recommended that “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprising” be rewritten as something like: “ A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform a video encoding method, the video coding method comprising…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2020/0275118 A1 with reference to Prov. Application No. 62/809,476, hereinafter referred to as 476), in view of He et al. (US 2021/0203947 A1, with reference to Prov. Application No. 62/786,768, hereinafter referred to as 768), hereinafter referred to as Wang and He, respectively.
Regarding claim1, Wang teaches, “A method for decoding a video sequence, the method comprising: decoding the video sequence using one of a 4:4:4 chroma format [Fig. 7 reveals MV determination with 4:4:4 color format. See Fig. 7 of 476] and a 4:2:2 chroma format [Fig. 9 reveals MV determination with 4:2:2 color format. See Fig. 9 of 476], when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format, copying an affine motion vector of one 4x4 luma block using an operation other than an averaging operation [See Examiner’s comment #4 for further details. As to the 4:4:4 color format, MVs of a collocated NxM luma block (e.g., 4x4) are reused (i.e. copied) for the current NxM chroma block (e.g., 4x4) in affine mode, i.e. affine MVs. See para 0032, 0116-0117 and Fig. 8 along with para 0080 and Fig. 8 of 476). Applying a reused MV is different than applying an averaged MV. For further support, see He below] and associating the affine motion vector to a co- located 4x4 chroma block [Since Wang discloses using the affine mode (para 0080 of 476), then it follows an affine MV from the collocated 4x4 luma block would be reused for the 4x4 chroma block, i.e. is associated. Also see Examiner’s response #4], and when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:2:2 chroma format, associating each 4x4 chroma block with two 4x4 co-located luma blocks such that an affine motion vector of one 4x4 chroma block is an average of the motion vectors of the two co-located luma blocks.” [See Fig. 9 and para 0124-0130 of Wang. Regarding 4:2:2 format, see para 0081 and Fig. 9 of 476 for equivalent support. This may be applied to affine mode as per 0078-0080 of 476, i.e. affine MVs] Although Wang describes the foregoing elements, He from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to provide more explicit support for the limitation “when the video sequence is decoded using the 4:4:4 chroma format, copying an affine motion vector of one 4x4 luma block using an operation other than an averaging operation and associating the affine motion vector to a co- located 4x4 chroma block” [Given MVs at control points for an affine coded CU, the MV for a chroma component may reuse (i.e., copy) the MV for the luma component, i.e. an affine MV of the luma block can be associated with a co-located chroma block of the CU. See para 0127 along with para 0117 of 768 for support.] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion vector derivation techniques of Wang to add the teachings of He as above to provide adaptive motion vector precision for affine motion model based video coding (abstract), where motion vectors at control points for the luma components of a CU can be reused for the chroma components of that CU. As such, He’s teachings allow for improving the accuracy of affine motion estimation and reducing encoding complexity (e.g. para 0094).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1 since encoding and decoding are inverse operations that enable compressed video data to be decompressed and reconstructed at a receiving device. See fig. 1 of Wang for support. Also refer to figs. 10 and 11 which depict the video encoder and video decoder, respectively.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the required hardware, please refer to Wang para 0053-0054, 0250-0252, along with Figs. 10 and 11 (see Figs. 10-11 and associated text of 476) to implement the functions described therein.
Claims 2, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of He, and in further view of Tamse and Park (Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 13th Meeting: Marrakech, MA, 9-18 Jan. 2019, hereinafter referred to as Tamse.
Regarding claim 2, Wang and He teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang and He however do not further address the features of Claim 2. Tamse on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses, “further comprising, regardless of the chroma format, dividing a current 4x4 chroma block into four 2x2 sub- blocks, [Tamse (abstract) discloses MV derivation for chroma sub-blocks of an affine CU, where a sub-block is 4x4 samples. Reference top Figure on pg. 2 with respect to partitioning the block into 2x2 sub-blocks] deriving a first affine motion vector of a co-located luma block for a top-left 2x2 chroma sub-block [See top Figure (pg. 2) under Sect. 1 (Introduction) where MV1 corresponds to a collocated top-left 2x2 luma sub-block], deriving a second affine motion vector of the co-located luma block for a bottom-right 2x2 chroma block [Same Figure, where MV4 corresponds to a collocated bottom-right 2x2 luma sub-block], and deriving an affine motion vector of the current 4x4 chroma block using the average of the first affine motion vector and the second affine motion vector.” [Pg. 2 (below Fig.) the MVs of 4 luma-sub-blocks are averaged together to derive affine MV of chroma sub-block. Also reference Abstract where Tamse’s approach uses averages the top-left and bottom-right luma sub-blocks MVs as the representative MV] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion vector derivation techniques of Wang and the adaptive motion vector precision for affine motion model based video coding of He, to add the teachings of Tamse as above to simplify the motion vector derivation process for chroma subblock of an affine CU by using fewer luma sub-block motion vectors and to also further address the asymmetric rounding issue when averaging the luma sub-blocks (Abstract and Conclusion).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of He, and in further view of He et al. (US 2019/0166382 A1), hereinafter referred to as He382.
Regarding claim 3, Wang and He teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang and He however do not further disclose “further comprising aligning an interpolation filter used for motion compensation between luma and chroma components.” He382 on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the foregoing limitation [See para 0066 regarding applying interpolation filters for chroma upsampling in a luma chroma sampling grid for video] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion vector derivation techniques of Wang and the adaptive motion vector precision for affine motion model based video coding of He, to add the teachings of He382 as above for performing a geometric conversion to unaligned chroma and luma components associated with a first chroma sampling scheme of 360-degree video, so as to align the chroma and luma components to a sampling grid associated with a second chroma sampling scheme (abstract); thus, the geometric conversion process facilitates the delivery of 360-degree video for users of VR systems (¶0050).
Regarding claim 4, Wang, He, and He382 teach all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang and He however do not further disclose “wherein when a video sequence is input using a 4:2:0 chroma format, applying an 8-tap interpolation filter for luma components and chroma components.” He382 on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the foregoing limitation [See para 0066 where a 4-tap interpolation filter can be applied for example. It would be considered within the level of skill in the art to be able to apply interpolation filters having different taps according to the application(s). For e.g., see para 0074 where longer or shorter tap filters may be used with the disclosed phase re-alignment filter examples] The motivation for combining Wang, He, and He382 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Claims 5, 6, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of He, and in further view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0059659 A1 with reference to Prov. App. No. 62/789566), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 5, Wang and He teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang and He however do not further disclose “further comprising, coding as three separate trees, components Y, Cb, and Cr, and wherein each tree of the three separate trees codes one component of the components Y, Cb, and Cr.” Chen on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the foregoing limitation. [Reference para 0047 with respect to MTT structures which can be coded separately for luma and chroma components in an I-slice. Coding for each component can therefore reasonably imply having three separate tree codes] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion vector derivation techniques of Wang and the adaptive motion vector precision for affine motion model based video coding of He, to add the teachings of Chen as above to provide a video coder that uses a shared candidate list for encoding/decoding multiple blocks of pixels within a shared boundary (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Wang, He, and Chen teach all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang and He however do not disclose “wherein the coding as three separate trees is performed for an I slice or an I tile group.” Chen on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the foregoing limitation. [Given the ‘or’ condition in the above limitation, see para 0047 with respect to MTT structures which can be coded separately for luma and chroma components in an I-slice] The motivation for combining Wang, He, and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 5, above.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Claims 7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of He, and in further view of Zhao et al. (US 2015/0030067 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhao.
Regarding claim 7, Wang and He teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang and He however do not further disclose “wherein a maximum allowed transform size is the same for different color components.” Zhao on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the foregoing limitation. [See for e.g., claim 2 of Zhao where the maximum TU size of the color component is 16x16 which can be reasonably construed as applying to both color components] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion vector derivation techniques of Wang and the adaptive motion vector precision for affine motion model based video coding of He, to add the teachings of Zhao as above to provide a means for coded block flag (CBF) coding in HEVC which employs a unified CBF signaling method to help simplify the process and to further improve the efficiency of the signaling method (para 0002, 0011).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 7.
Claims 9, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, in view of He, and in further view of Liu et al. (US 2018/0332284 A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu.
Regarding claim 9, Wang and He teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Wang and He however do not further disclose “wherein at least one of a Position-Dependent Predictor combination (PDPC), a Multiple Transform Selection (MTS), a Non-Separable Secondary Transform (NSST), an Intra-Sub Partitioning (ISP), and a Multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction is applied to both a luma component and a chroma component.” Liu on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the foregoing. [Given the ‘or’ limitation above, Liu para 0049 is found to teach using a multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction approach that can be applied to the nearest luma or chroma values, i.e., both] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion vector derivation techniques of Wang and the adaptive motion vector precision for affine motion model based video coding of He, to add the teachings of Liu as above to provide an intra-prediction approach using multiple reference lines (e.g., Fig. 8) where matching may be improved that results in reduced residual values and hence better compression (para 0049).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 9.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 8 and 10 are 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
8. The method of claim 7, wherein when encoding or decoding the video sequence using the 4:2:2 chroma format, a maximum vertical transform size is the same among different color components, and a maximum horizontal transform size for color components is half of a maximum horizontal transform size for luma components.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein: when the Multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction is applied to both the luma component and the chroma component, and when decoding the video sequence is performed using the 4:4:4 chroma format, the method further comprises selecting an Nth reference for intra prediction, and using a same reference line without explicit signaling for chroma components; when the Intra-Sub Partitioning (ISP) is applied to both the luma component and the chroma component, the method further comprises applying the Intra-Sub Partitioning (ISP) at a block level for a current block for components Y, Cb, and Cr; andwhen different trees are used for different color components, the method further comprises implicitly deriving coding parameters for U and V components from collocated Y components without signaling.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 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 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486