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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite the following limitation:
“… determin[ing] inter direction of the MVP candidate … wherein the inter direction …”.
The limitation should recite the following for proper antecedent basis and grammatical correctness:
“… determin[ing] an inter direction of the MVP candidate … wherein the inter direction …”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 26 depends on canceled claim 25 and therefore, lacks clarity. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., hereinafter referred to as Chen (US 2018/0184117 A1) in view of Chuang et al., hereinafter referred to as Chuang (US 2018/0249154 A1).
As per claim 1, Chen discloses a method of video coding (Chen: Abstract.), the method comprising:
receiving input data associated with a current block, wherein the input data comprise pixel data for the current block to be encoded at an encoder side or coded data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side (Chen: Para. [0042] discloses "input data associated with a current block in a current picture is received [claimed receiving input data associated with a current block]"; Para. [0020] discloses "neighboring reconstructed pixels [claimed pixel data] of the current block".), and wherein an MVP (Motion Vector Prediction) candidate for the current block comprises a first MV predictor pointing to a first reference block in an L0 reference picture and a second MV predictor pointing to a second reference block in an L1 reference picture (Chen: Para. [0019] discloses "MVP candidates [claimed MVP candidate]"; Para. [0042] discloses "initial MV0 [claimed first MV predictor] pointing to a reference block 0 in a list0 reference picture [claimed L0 reference picture] and an initial MV1 [claimed second MV predictor] pointing to a reference block 1 in a list1 reference picture [claimed L1 reference picture]".);
determining an L0 matching cost between a first template corresponding to one or more first neighbouring regions of the first reference block and a current template corresponding to one or more current neighbouring regions of the current block (Chen: Para. [0042] discloses "minimum first template cost [claimed L0 matching cost] between the current template of the current block and the refined reference block 0 [claimed first template]".);
determining an L1 matching cost between a second template corresponding to one or more second neighbouring regions of the second reference block and the current template (Chen: Para. [0042] discloses "minimum second template cost [claimed L1 matching cost] between the current template of the current block and the refined reference block 1 [claimed second template]".);
inserting the MVP candidate into an AMVP (Adaptive MVP) list or a merge list (Chen: Para. [0014] discloses "This MVP [claimed MVP candidate] is inserted into the first position in AMVP [claimed AMVP list]"); and
encoding or decoding the current block by using second information comprising the AMVP list or the merge list (Chen: Para. [0044] discloses "the current block is encoded or decoded [claimed encoding or decoding the current block]"; Para. [0006] discloses "The decoder maintains a same merge list [claimed second information] and uses the merge index to retrieve the merge candidate"; Para. [0014] discloses "AMVP represents advanced MV prediction and AMVP is a coding tool for coding the motion vector(s) of the current block in Inter coding mode. According to AMVP, a current MV is coded predictively using a motion vector predictor selected from a candidate list [claimed AMVP list]".).
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose “… determining inter direction of the MVP candidate for the current block based on first information comprising the L0 matching cost and the L1 matching cost, wherein the inter direction corresponds to bi-prediction, L0 uni-prediction or L1 uni-prediction; …”.
Further, Chuang is in the same field of endeavor and teaches determining inter direction of the MVP candidate for the current block based on first information comprising the L0 matching cost and the L1 matching cost, wherein the inter direction corresponds to bi-prediction, L0 uni-prediction or L1 uni-prediction (Chuang Para. [0041] discloses "the SAD cost of LIST_0 templates and LIST_1 templates [claimed L0 and L1 matching costs] are calculated separately … the uni-prediction or bi-direction [claimed inter direction] ME is adaptively selected"; Para. [0068] discloses "a coding mode [claimed inter direction] is selected among the first uni-prediction, the second uni-prediction and the bi-prediction according to a minimum cost among the first cost, the second cost and the third cost [claimed first information including the L0 and L1 matching costs] … a final MV or a final motion vector predictor (MVP) [claimed MVP candidate] is determined from a set of MV candidates or MVP candidates including a corresponding MV associated with the coding mode selected".).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Chen and Chuang before him or her, to modify the video coding system of Chen to include the inter direction feature as described in Chuang. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve motion vector prediction accuracy and overall coding efficiency by providing a configuration that reduces complexity of motion vector derivation.
As per claim 2, Chen-Chuang disclose the method of claim 1, wherein a bi-prediction matching cost is calculated between a blended template and the current template, and wherein the blended template is derived by blending the first template and the second template (Chuang Para. [0068] discloses "a third cost corresponding to bi-prediction [a bi-prediction matching cost is calculated] between the current template for the current block and a combination [blending] of the first template and the second template [between a blended template and the current template]".).
As per claim 3, Chen-Chuang disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the bi-prediction matching cost, the L0 matching cost and the L1 matching cost are calculated according to a sum of absolute differences (SAD) or a sum of squared differences (SSD) (Chuang Para. [0056] discloses "the SAD costs [matching costs] of the template with various MVs are calculated"; Para. [0057] discloses "The sum of absolute difference (SAD) can be calculated as the sum of the absolute difference between virtual pixels of current block and reference block. Alternatively, the sum of the squared difference (SSD) can be calculated".).
As per claim 5, Chen-Chuang disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the inter direction of the MVP candidate is determined for the current block on a per sample basis, or the inter direction of the MVP candidate is determined for the current block on a per block basis (Chuang Para. [0041] discloses "the uni-prediction or bi-direction ME [inter direction] is adaptively selected to generate the reference block [per block basis] according to the present method when both MVs in LIST_0 and LIST_1 exist".).
As per claim 26, Chen-Chuang disclose the method of claim 25, wherein the MVP candidate corresponds to regular merge candidate, a GPM (Geometric Partitioning Mode) candidate, an MMVD (Merge Motion Vector Difference) candidate, a BM (Bilateral-Matching) candidate, or an Affine candidate, a CIIP candidate (Chen: Paras. [0011], [0019] disclose various MVP candidates, such as Bilateral-Matching.).
As per claim 27, Chen discloses an apparatus for video coding (Chen: Abstract.), the apparatus comprising one or more electronics or processors arranged to (Chen: Paras. [0018], [0042] disclose the apparatus comprising one or more electronics or processors arranged to:):
receive input data associated with a current block, wherein the input data comprise pixel data for the current block to be encoded at an encoder side or coded data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side (Chen: Para. [0042] discloses "input data associated with a current block in a current picture is received [claimed receiving input data associated with a current block]"; Para. [0020] discloses "neighboring reconstructed pixels [claimed pixel data] of the current block".), and wherein an MVP (Motion Vector Prediction) candidate for the current block comprises a first MV predictor pointing to a first reference block in an L0 reference picture and a second MV predictor pointing to a second reference block in an L1 reference picture (Chen: Para. [0019] discloses "MVP candidates [claimed MVP candidate]"; Para. [0042] discloses "initial MV0 [claimed first MV predictor] pointing to a reference block 0 in a list0 reference picture [claimed L0 reference picture] and an initial MV1 [claimed second MV predictor] pointing to a reference block 1 in a list1 reference picture [claimed L1 reference picture]".);
determine an L0 matching cost between a first template corresponding to one or more first neighbouring regions of the first reference block and a current template corresponding to one or more current neighbouring regions of the current block (Chen: Para. [0042] discloses "minimum first template cost [claimed L0 matching cost] between the current template of the current block and the refined reference block 0 [claimed first template]".);
determine an L1 matching cost between a second template corresponding to one or more second neighbouring regions of the second reference block and the current template (Chen: Para. [0042] discloses "minimum second template cost [claimed L1 matching cost] between the current template of the current block and the refined reference block 1 [claimed second template]".);
insert the MVP candidate into an AMVP (Adaptive MVP) list or a merge list (Chen: Para. [0014] discloses "This MVP [claimed MVP candidate] is inserted into the first position in AMVP [claimed AMVP list]"); and
encode or decode the current block by using second information comprising the AMVP list or the merge list (Chen: Para. [0044] discloses "the current block is encoded or decoded [claimed encoding or decoding the current block]"; Para. [0006] discloses "The decoder maintains a same merge list [claimed second information] and uses the merge index to retrieve the merge candidate"; Para. [0014] discloses "AMVP represents advanced MV prediction and AMVP is a coding tool for coding the motion vector(s) of the current block in Inter coding mode. According to AMVP, a current MV is coded predictively using a motion vector predictor selected from a candidate list [claimed AMVP list]".).
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose “… determine inter direction of the MVP candidate for the current block based on first information comprising the L0 matching cost and the L1 matching cost, wherein the inter direction corresponds to bi-prediction, L0 uni-prediction or L1 uni-prediction; …”.
Further, Chuang is in the same field of endeavor and teaches determine inter direction of the MVP candidate for the current block based on first information comprising the L0 matching cost and the L1 matching cost, wherein the inter direction corresponds to bi-prediction, L0 uni-prediction or L1 uni-prediction (Chuang Para. [0041] discloses "the SAD cost of LIST_0 templates and LIST_1 templates [claimed L0 and L1 matching costs] are calculated separately … the uni-prediction or bi-direction [claimed inter direction] ME is adaptively selected"; Para. [0068] discloses "a coding mode [claimed inter direction] is selected among the first uni-prediction, the second uni-prediction and the bi-prediction according to a minimum cost among the first cost, the second cost and the third cost [claimed first information including the L0 and L1 matching costs] … a final MV or a final motion vector predictor (MVP) [claimed MVP candidate] is determined from a set of MV candidates or MVP candidates including a corresponding MV associated with the coding mode selected".).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Chen and Chuang before him or her, to modify the video coding system of Chen to include the inter direction feature as described in Chuang. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve motion vector prediction accuracy and overall coding efficiency by providing a configuration that reduces complexity of motion vector derivation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Chuang in further view of Hermansson et al., hereinafter referred to as Hermansson (US 2019/0037213 A1).
As per claim 4, Chen-Chuang disclose the method of claim 2, (Chen: Para. [0009] discloses "For each MV pair, two reference blocks are compensated by using this MV pair. The sum of absolutely differences (SAD) of these two blocks is calculated" [claimed bi-prediction matching cost]).
However, Chen-Chuang do not explicitly disclose “… wherein the bi-prediction matching cost is weighted by a factor smaller than 1 for matching cost comparison among the L0 matching cost, the L1 matching cost and the bi-prediction matching cost.”.
Further, Hermansson is in the same field of endeavor and teaches wherein the bi-prediction matching cost is weighted by a factor smaller than 1 for matching cost comparison among the L0 matching cost, the L1 matching cost and the bi-prediction matching cost (Hermansson: Para. [0099] discloses "When calculating the second error metric … the error for each individual image element is weighted using the same weights" and Para. [0087] discloses "w represents a weight between 0 and 1" [claimed weighted by a factor smaller than 1].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Chen-Chuang and Hermansson before him or her, to modify the video coding system of Chen-Chuang to include the factor smaller than 1 feature as described in Hermansson. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve accurate prediction comparisons by providing a configuration that appropriately scales error metrics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-14, 17-18, 20-24 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and can be viewed in the list of references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 04-03-2026