Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communications received on November 27,2024, March 6, 2025 and May 2, 2025 for application number 18/961,778. This Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
3. Claims 22-41 are presented for examination. Claims 1-21 have been canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 27,2024 and February 27,2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 conflicting claims 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); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
6. Claims 22-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-13 and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 in view of Li et al.(US 2021/0058634 A1)(hereinafter Li).
With regards to claim 22, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 1, an apparatus for video decoding, comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine, for a coding block in a current picture, a reference picture listed in a first reference picture list and a reference picture listed in a second reference picture list; determine whether to perform bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) for the coding block based on a determination of whether a picture order count (POC) difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to a POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list and based on a determination of whether bi-prediction with CU weights (BCW) is used to decode the coding block; determine whether to perform decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) for the coding block based on the determination of whether the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list, the determination of whether BCW is used to decode the coding block, and a determination of whether an inter prediction parameter for the coding block is obtained from a neighboring block of the coding block; and decode the coding block based on the determination of whether to perform BDOF for the coding block and the determination of whether to perform DMVR for the coding block, wherein the coding block is decoded by performing BDOF for the coding block and skipping DMVR for the coding block based on a condition that the inter prediction parameter for the coding block is not obtained from the neighboring block for the coding block, and the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list, and wherein the coding block is decoded by performing BDOF and DMVR for the coding block based on a condition that BCW is not used to decode the coding block, and the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list.
U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 is silent to determine a first condition that a bi-prediction with coding unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight.
However, determining a condition that a bi-prediction with coding unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight to decode a coding block was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Li. More specifically, Li discloses in Figures 11 and 12, when determining the BDOF and DMVR conditions that establishes where BCW weight index indicates equal weight. [See Li: at least Figs. 11 and 12, and par. 113, 136-139].
One of ordinary skill in the art has been motivated to combine the apparatus for video decoding as taught by U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 with Li’s BDOF and DMVR conditions where a bi-prediction with coding unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight because this combination has the benefit of improving coding performance.
With regards to claim 23, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 22, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 2, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that an affine mode or an advanced temporal motion vector prediction (ATMVP) merge mode is not used to decode the coding block.
With regards to claim 24, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 22, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 3, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that weighted prediction (WP) is not used to decode the coding block.
With regards to claim 25, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 22, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 4, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that a height of the coding block and a width of the coding block are equal to or greater than a value. Further, Li discloses in Figures 11 and 12, cbWidth (coding block width) is greater than or equal to 8 and dbHeight (coding block height) is greater or equal to 8[See Li: at least Figs. 11 and 12].
With regards to claim 26, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 22, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 6, wherein the neighboring block is a spatial or temporal neighboring block of the coding block.
With regards to claim 27, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 12, a method for video decoding, comprising: determining, for a coding block in a current picture, a reference picture listed in a first reference picture list and a reference picture listed in a second reference picture list; determining whether to perform bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) for the coding block based on a determination of whether a picture order count (POC) difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to a POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list and based on a determination of whether bi-prediction with CU weights (BCW) is used to decode the coding block; determining whether to perform decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) for the coding block based on the determination of whether the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list, the determination of whether BCW is used to decode the coding block, and a determination of whether an inter prediction parameter for the coding block is obtained from a neighboring block of the coding block; and decoding the coding block based on the determination of whether to perform BDOF for the coding block and the determination of whether to perform DMVR for the coding block, wherein the coding block is decoded by performing BDOF for the coding block and skipping DMVR for the coding block based on a condition that the inter prediction parameter for the coding block is not obtained from the neighboring block for the coding block, and the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list, and wherein the coding block is decoded by performing BDOF and DMVR for the coding block based on a condition that BCW is not used to decode the coding block, and the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list.
U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 is silent to determining a first condition that a bi-prediction with Coding Unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight.
However, determining a condition that a bi-prediction with coding unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight to decode a coding block was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Li. More specifically, Li discloses in Figures 11 and 12, when determining the BDOF and DMVR conditions that establishes where BCW weight index indicates equal weight. [See Li: at least Figs. 11 and 12, and par. 113, 136-139].
One of ordinary skill in the art has been motivated to combine the apparatus for video decoding as taught by U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 with Li’s BDOF and DMVR conditions where a bi-prediction with coding unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight because this combination has the benefit of improving coding performance.
With regards to claim 28, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 27, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 2, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that an affine mode or an advanced temporal motion vector prediction (ATMVP) merge mode is not used to decode the coding block.
With regards to claim 29, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 27, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 3, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that weighted prediction (WP) is not used to decode the coding block.
With regards to claim 30, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 27, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 13, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that a height of the coding block and a width of the coding block are equal to or greater than a value. Further, Li discloses in Figures 11 and 12, cbWidth (coding block width) is greater than or equal to 8 and dbHeight (coding block height) is greater or equal to 8[See Li: at least Figs. 11 and 12].
With regards to claim 31, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 27, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 6, wherein the neighboring block is a spatial or temporal neighboring block of the coding block.
With regards to claim 32, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 7, an apparatus for video encoding, comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine, for a coding block in a current picture, a reference picture listed in a first reference picture list and a reference picture listed in a second reference picture list; determine whether to perform bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) for the coding block based on a determination of whether a picture order count (POC) difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to a POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list and based on a determination of whether bi-prediction with CU weights (BCW) is used to encode the coding block; determine whether to perform decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) for the coding block based on the determination of whether the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list, the determination of whether BCW is used to encode the coding block, and a determination of whether an inter prediction parameter for the coding block is obtained from a neighboring block of the coding block; and encode the coding block based on the determination of whether to perform BDOF for the coding block and the determination of whether to perform DMVR for the coding block, wherein the coding block is encoded by performing BDOF for the coding block and skipping DMVR for the coding block based on a condition that the inter prediction parameter for the coding block is not obtained from the neighboring block for the coding block, and the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list, and wherein the coding block is encoded by performing BDOF and DMVR for the coding block based on a condition that BCW is not used to encode the coding block, and the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list.
U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 is silent to determine a first condition that a bi-prediction with Coding Unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight.
However, determining a condition that a bi-prediction with coding unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight to encode a coding block was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Li. More specifically, Li discloses in Figures 11 and 12, when determining the BDOF and DMVR conditions that establishes where BCW weight index indicates equal weight. [See Li: at least Figs. 11 and 12, and par. 113, 136-139].
One of ordinary skill in the art has been motivated to combine the apparatus for video encoding as taught by U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 with Li’s BDOF and DMVR conditions where a bi-prediction with coding unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight because this combination has the benefit of improving coding performance.
With regards to claim 33, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 32, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 8, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that an affine mode or an advanced temporal motion vector prediction (ATMVP) merge mode is not used to encode the coding block.
With regards to claim 34, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 32, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 9, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that weighted prediction (WP) is not used to encode the coding block.
With regards to claim 35, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 32, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 4, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that a height of the coding block and a width of the coding block are equal to or greater than a value. Further, Li discloses in Figures 11 and 12, cbWidth (coding block width) is greater than or equal to 8 and dbHeight (coding block height) is greater or equal to 8[See Li: at least Figs. 11 and 12].
With regards to claim 36, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 32, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 11, wherein the neighboring block is a spatial or temporal neighboring block of the coding block.
With regards to claim 37, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 16, a method for video encoding, comprising: determining, for a coding block in a current picture, a reference picture listed in a first reference picture list and a reference picture listed in a second reference picture list; determining whether to perform bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) for the coding block based on a determination of whether a picture order count (POC) difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to a POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list and based on a determination of whether bi-prediction with CU weights (BCW) is used to encode the coding block; determining whether to perform decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) for the coding block based on the determination of whether the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list, the determination of whether BCW is used to encode the coding block, and a determination of whether an inter prediction parameter for the coding block is obtained from a neighboring block of the coding block; and encoding the coding block based on the determination of whether to perform BDOF for the coding block and the determination of whether to perform DMVR for the coding block, wherein the coding block is encoded by performing BDOF for the coding block and skipping DMVR for the coding block based on a condition that the inter prediction parameter for the coding block is not obtained from the neighboring block for the coding block, and the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list, and wherein the coding block is encoded by performing BDOF and DMVR for the coding block based on a condition that BCW is not used to encode the coding block, and the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the first reference picture list is equal to the POC difference between the current picture and the reference picture listed in the second reference picture list.
U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 is silent to determining a first condition that a bi-prediction with Coding Unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight.
However, determining a condition that a bi-prediction with coding unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight to encode a coding block was well known in the art at the time of the invention was filed as evident from the teaching of Li. More specifically, Li discloses in Figures 11 and 12, when determining the BDOF and DMVR conditions that establishes where BCW weight index indicates equal weight. [See Li: at least Figs. 11 and 12, and par. 113, 136-139].
One of ordinary skill in the art has been motivated to combine the apparatus for video encoding as taught by U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 with Li’s BDOF and DMVR conditions where a bi-prediction with coding unit weights (BCW) index indicates equal weight because this combination has the benefit of improving coding performance.
With regards to claim 38, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 37, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 2, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that an affine mode or an advanced temporal motion vector prediction (ATMVP) merge mode is not used to decode the coding block. Further, Li discloses, in an example, the conditions include: (i) the CU's height is not 4, and the CU size is not 4×8, (ii) the CU is not coded using affine mode or the ATMVP merge mode[See Li: at least Figs. 11-12 and par. 113, 138].
With regards to claim 39, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 37, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 3, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that weighted prediction (WP) is not used to decode the coding block. Further, Li discloses, in an example, conditions include: a weighted prediction (WP) is not enabled for the current CU[See Li: at least Figs. 11-12 and par. 113, 138].
With regards to claim 40, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 37, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 17, wherein BDOF is determined to be performed for the coding block based on a condition that a height of the coding block and a width of the coding block are equal to or greater than a value. Further, Li discloses in Figures 11 and 12, cbWidth (coding block width) is greater than or equal to 8 and dbHeight (coding block height) is greater or equal to 8[See Li: at least Figs. 11 and 12].
With regards to claim 41, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 37, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Further, U.S. Patent No. 12,200,190 B2 claimed in claim 11, wherein the neighboring block is a spatial or temporal neighboring block of the coding block.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANA J PICON-FELICIANO whose telephone number is (571)272-5252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571 272 7331. 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.
/Ana Picon-Feliciano/Examiner, Art Unit 2482