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 statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/21/2025, 07/07/2025 & 12/20/2024 The submission are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Specifically. the claim/claims is/are directed to “storing instructions” and/or “storing bitstreams” but claim/claims does not have any steps related to “storing instructions” and “storing bitstreams”, therefore, the scope of the claim/claims are/is vague and indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by ZHANG et al. (US 20220295089, hereinafter ZHANG).
Regarding Claim 1, ZHANG discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
obtaining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a motion candidate list for the current video block ([0006], determining, during a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a set of motion candidates for the current video block);
determining, based on a similarity metric between a first motion candidate and a second motion candidate in the motion candidate list ([0006], determining, for each motion candidate in the set of motion candidates, a refined motion candidate by performing a local search around the each motion candidate based on a template matching cost rule [as similarity metric]), whether to update the motion candidate list ([0006], determining, from a set of refined motion candidates generated for the set of motion candidates, a target motion candidate for the current video block); and
performing the conversion based on the determination ([0006], performing the conversion based on the target motion candidate).
Regarding Claim 2, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the similarity metric is dependent on a template matching (TM) cost or motion vector information ([0006], determining, for each motion candidate in the set of motion candidates, a refined motion candidate by performing a local search around the each motion candidate based on a template matching cost rule).
Regarding Claim 3, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein motion candidates in the motion candidate list are ordered in accordance with TM costs of the motion candidates ([0207]. In the template matching merge mode, the encoder can choose among uni-prediction from list0, uni-prediction from list1 or bi-prediction for a CU. The selection is based on a template matching cost as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
121
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where :
cost0 is the SUM OF ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (SAD) of list0 template matching,
cost1 is the SUM OF ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (SAD) of list1 template matching and
costBi is the SUM OF ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (SAD) of bi-prediction template matching; The value of factor is equal to 1.25, which means that the selection process is biased toward bi-prediction).
Regarding Claim 4, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein preforming the conversion comprises: in accordance with a determination to update the motion candidate list, updating the motion candidate list by removing the first motion candidate or the second motion candidate from the motion candidate list ([0075] The HMVP table size S is set to be 6, which indicates up to 6 History-based MVP (HMVP) candidates may be added to the table. When inserting a new motion candidate to the table, a constrained first-in-first-out (FIFO) rule is utilized wherein redundancy check is firstly applied to find whether there is an identical HMVP in the table. If found, the identical HMVP is removed from the table and all the HMVP candidates afterwards are moved forward.5. The method of claim 1, wherein if the similarity metric is smaller than or equal to a threshold, the motion candidate list is updated); and
performing the conversion based on the updated motion candidate list([0006], performing the conversion based on the target motion candidate).
Regarding Claim 5, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein if the similarity metric is smaller than or equal to a threshold, the motion candidate list is updated ([0207]. In the template matching merge mode, the encoder can choose among uni-prediction from list0, uni-prediction from list1 or bi-prediction for a CU).
Regarding Claim 6, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein if the similarity metric is larger than a threshold, the motion candidate list is updated ([0195] Advanced Temporal Motion Vector Prediction (ATMVP) and Spatial-Temporal Motion Vector Prediction (STMVP) candidates are limited to the four first ones); [0239] 25 points full search is applied for integer sample offset searching. The SUM OF ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (SAD) of the initial MV pair is first calculated).
Regarding Claim 7, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the similarity metric is determined based on a result of dividing a TM cost of the second motion candidate by a TM cost of the first motion candidate, or wherein the similarity metric is determined based on an absolute value of a difference between a TM cost of the second motion candidate and a TM cost of the first motion candidate ([0202] The calculation of matching cost is a bit different at different steps. When selecting the candidate from the candidate set at the CU level, the matching cost is the absolute sum difference (SUM OF ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (SAD)) of bilateral matching or template matching. After the starting MV is determined, the matching cost C of bilateral matching at sub-CU level search is calculated as follows: C=SUM OF ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (SAD)+w.Math.(|MV.sub.x−MV.sub.x.sup.s|+|MV.sub.y−MV.sub.y.sup.s|) (2-10)
where w is a weighting factor which is empirically set to 4, MV and MVS indicate the current MV and the starting MV, respectively. SUM OF ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (SAD) is still used as the matching cost of template matching at sub-CU level search.
Regarding Claim 8, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the threshold is a real number ([0195] Advanced Temporal Motion Vector Prediction (ATMVP) and Spatial-Temporal Motion Vector Prediction (STMVP) candidates are limited to the four first ones).
Regarding Claim 9, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the similarity metric is determined based on a difference metric between a motion vector of the second motion candidate and a motion vector of the first motion candidate ([0239] If the SUM OF ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (SAD) of the initial MV pair is smaller than a threshold, the integer sample stage of DMVR is terminated. Otherwise SUM OF ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (SAD)s of the remaining 24 points are calculated and checked in raster scanning order. ).
Regarding Claim 10, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the difference metric is determined based on at least one of the following: an L0 norm, an L1 norm, or an L2 norm ([0239] 25 points full search is applied for integer sample offset searching. The SUM OF ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCES (SAD) (L1 norm) of the initial MV pair is first calculated).
Regarding Claim 11, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the threshold is constant, or wherein the threshold is dependent on at least one of the following: a size of the current video block, a quantization parameter for coding the current video block, a temporal layer of the current video block, or the lowest cost among costs of motion candidates in the motion candidate list, or herein the threshold is indicated in the bitstream, or wherein information related to determining the threshold is indicated in the bitstream
Regarding Claim 12, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the motion candidate list comprises one of the following:
a merge candidate list, an affine merge candidate list, an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate list ([0168] 2.8. Affine Merge Prediction); a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) candidate list ([0023] FIG. 7, merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) search points.), or an affine MMVD candidate list ([0168] 2.8. Affine Merge Prediction; [0169] AF_MERGE mode can be applied for CUs with both width and height larger than or equal to 8).
Regarding Claim 13, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the number of base candidates for an MMVD-based mode for coding the current video block is dependent on a prediction mode of at least one neighboring block of the current video block ([0023] FIG. 7 shows an example of merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) search points.),
Regarding Claim 14, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the number of the base candidates is dependent on the number of neighboring blocks of the current video block that are coded based on an intra prediction mode, or wherein the number of the base candidates is dependent on the number of neighboring blocks of the current video block that are coded based on an inter prediction mode, or wherein the number of the base candidates is an integer, or wherein the MMVD-based mode comprises an MMVD mode or an affine MMVD mode ([0163], FIG. 15A and FIG. 15B. SbTMVP predicts the motion vectors of the sub-CUs within the current CU in two steps: [0164], the motion shift identified in Step 1 is applied (i.e. added to the current block's coordinates) to obtain sub-CU-level motion information (motion vectors and reference indices) from the collocated picture as shown in FIG. 15B).
Regarding Claim 15, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the number of base candidates for an MMVD-based mode for coding the current video block is dependent on at least one of the following: a temporal layer of the current video block, a size of the current video block, a height of the current video block, or a width of the current video block ([0163], FIG. 15A and FIG. 15B. SbTMVP predicts the motion vectors of the sub-CUs within the current CU. If A1 has a motion vector that uses the collocated picture as its reference picture, this motion vector is selected to be the motion shift to be applied. If no such motion is identified, then the motion shift is set to (0, 0)).
PNG
media_image2.png
354
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 16, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream ([0048] FIG. 29 is a block diagram that illustrates an example video encoder).
Regarding Claim 17, ZHANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream ([0049] FIG. 30 is a block diagram that illustrates an example video decoder).
Regarding Claim 18, Apparatus claim 18 of using the corresponding method claimed in claims 1, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding Claim 19, Computer-readable claim 18 of using the corresponding method claimed in claims 1, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding Claim 20, Computer-readable claim 18 of using the corresponding method claimed in claims 1, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel D Fereja whose telephone number is (469)295-9243. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM.
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, DAVID CZEKAJ can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/SAMUEL D FEREJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487