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 statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 21 January 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (JVET-Z0136-v1) (hereinafter referred to as D1) .
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, and 13, D1 discloses 1 an apparatus performing a video coding/decoding method comprising: receiving data to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video; identifying a first reference block in a first reference picture based on a first block vector of the current block [D1: §2.1: In Test-2.2a, when combining more than one prediction blocks, the OOB prediction samples are discarded and only the non-OOB predictors are used to generate the final predictor. Specifically, let Pos_Xᵢⱼ and Pos_yᵢⱼ denote the position of one prediction sample in one current block, Mv_xtx and Mv_ytx (x = 0,1) denote the MV of the current block; POSLeftBdry, POSRightBdry, POSTopBdry and SBottomBdry are the positions of four boundaries of the picture. One prediction sample is regarded as OOB when at least one of the following conditions is satisfied:
PNG
media_image1.png
120
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
…After examining the OOB condition for each sample, the final prediction samples of one bi-directional block is generated as follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
42
424
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
154
426
media_image3.png
Greyscale
];
performing out-of-bound (OOB) check for the first reference block relative to a boundary of a sub-unit of the first reference picture [D1: §2.1: One prediction sample is regarded as OOB when at least one of the following conditions is satisfied]; generating a predictor for the current block based on the first reference block and based on the OOB check [D1: §2.1: After examining the OOB condition for each sample, the final prediction samples of one bi-directional block is generated as follows]; and encoding or decoding the current block by using the generated predictor [D1: Title: Enhanced bi-directional motion compensation; and §2.1: the final prediction samples of one bi-directional block is generated].
Regarding Claim 2, D1 discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, D1 discloses further comprising: identifying a second reference block in a second reference pictures based on a second block vector of the current block [D1: §2.1: when combining more than one prediction blocks, the OOB prediction samples are discarded and only the non-OOB predictors are used to generate the final predictor]; and performing OOB check for the second reference block [D1: §2.1: One prediction sample is regarded as OOB when at least one of the following conditions is satisfied], wherein the predictor is generated based on the first and second reference blocks and based on the OOB checks of the first and second reference blocks [D1: Title: Enhanced bi-directional motion compensation; and §2.1: the final prediction samples of one bi-directional block is generated].
Regarding Claim 3, D1 discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, D1 discloses wherein when a sample of the first reference block is OOB [D1: Title: Enhanced bi-directional motion compensation; and §2.1: the final prediction samples of one bi-directional block is generated], the sample is not used in a bi-directional motion compensation for the current block [D1: §2.1: After examining the OOB condition for each sample, the final prediction samples of one bi-directional block is generated as follows].
Regarding Claim 4, D1 discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, D1 discloses wherein the sub-unit is one of a slice, a tile, or a pipeline data unit of the first reference picture [D1: FIG. 1].
Regarding Claim 5, D1 discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, D1 discloses wherein the current block is one of a plurality of sub-blocks of a larger block [D1: FIG. 1], wherein the OOB check of the first reference block is performed on only one representative pixel position in the first reference block [D1: §2.1: Specifically, let Pos_Xᵢⱼ and Pos_yᵢⱼ denote the position of one prediction sample in one current block, Mv_xtx and Mv_ytx (x = 0,1) denote the MV of the current block; POSLeftBdry, POSRightBdry, POSTopBdry and SBottomBdry are the positions of four boundaries of the picture].
Regarding Claim 6, D1 discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, D1 discloses wherein when a sample at the representative pixel position is OOB, a bi-directional motion compensation is not applied for the sub-block [D1: §2.1: After examining the OOB condition for each sample, the final prediction samples of one bi-directional block is generated as follows].
Regarding Claim 7, D1 discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, D1 discloses wherein the representative pixel position is a fractional position [D1: §2.1: where half pixel is equal to 8 that represents the half-pel sample distance in the 1/16-pel sample precision].
Regarding Claim 8, D1 discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, D1 discloses further comprising, for each sub-block of the larger block: identifying a reference block in a reference picture; performing OOB check for the identified reference block relative to a boundary of a sub-unit of the reference picture at only the representative pixel position and no other pixel position in the reference block [D1: §2.1: Specifically, let Pos_Xᵢⱼ and Pos_yᵢⱼ denote the position of one prediction sample in one current block, Mv_xtx and Mv_ytx (x = 0,1) denote the MV of the current block; POSLeftBdry, POSRightBdry, POSTopBdry and SBottomBdry are the positions of four boundaries of the picture]; and determining whether to perform bi-directional motion compensation for all samples of the sub- block based on the OOB check at the representative pixel position [D1: §2.1: One prediction sample is regarded as OOB when at least one of the following conditions is satisfied:
PNG
media_image1.png
120
320
media_image1.png
Greyscale
].
Regarding Claim 10, D1 discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, D1 discloses wherein a corresponding motion vector derived from a plurality of motion vectors of the sub-block [D1: §2.1: Mv_xtx and Mv_ytx (x = 0,1) denote the MV of the current block] is used to identify a reference block for the sub-block [D1: §1: In ECM-4.0, due to the reference samples padding of the reference picture, it is possible for an inter CU to have a reference block located outside the reference picture partially or totally as illustrated in Figure 1. In the Figure 1, bi-directional motion compensation is performed to generate the inter prediction block of the current block. In this example, list 0 reference block is partially out-of-boundary (OOB) while list 1 reference block is fully inside the reference picture.].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Leleannec et al. (US 2023/0336721 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, D1 disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 5, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
D1 may not explicitly disclose wherein a size of a sub-block is determined based on a coding tool that is used for encoding or decoding the current block.
However, Leleannec discloses wherein a size of a sub-block is determined based on a coding tool that is used for encoding or decoding the current block [Leleannec: ¶ [0004:] The method comprises steps for partitioning a block of a video image into subblocks of size in correspondence with one or more coding tools; and encoding the video block using said one or more coding tools].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of D1 with the coding tool based size determination of Leleannec in order to reduce computational errors based on specific processes’ needs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: While various means of deriving motion vectors exist, the specific application for the specific situation has not been found in the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482