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 (IDS) submitted on is 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 § 102
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(s) 1-5, 9-11 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. US 2021/0160511.
As to claim 1, Zhang teaches a video coding method comprising: receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video; [abstract; fig. 30; ¶ 0515; ¶ 0550-0551] deriving a linear model to refine or generate a prediction candidate by regression to minimize a difference between samples of a current template neighboring the current block and samples of a reference template identified by the prediction candidate; [¶ 0109-0112; ¶ 0129-0131; ¶ 0188-0196; ¶ 0278-0318] generating a prediction of the current block based on the derived linear model; [abstract; ¶ 0109-0112] and encoding or decoding the current block by using the generated prediction. [abstract; ¶ 0109-0112; ¶ 0515; ¶ 0550-0551]
As to claim 2, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein the derived prediction candidate being refined is an affine motion candidate and the derived model is an affine motion model having four parameters for affine motion based on two check points or an affine motion model having six parameters for three check points. [¶ 0115; ¶ 0189-0194]
As to claim 3, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 2. Zhang teaches wherein the affine motion candidate being refined is a merge candidate with motion vector difference (MMVD) candidate or an adaptive motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate. [¶ 0096-0099; ¶ 0109-0116; ¶ 0120; ¶ 0129-0130]
As to claim 4, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1, Zhang teaches wherein the refined prediction candidate is added to a list of prediction candidates for the current block. [¶ 0129]
As to claim 5, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein the refined prediction candidate replaces the prediction candidate in a list of prediction candidates for the current block. [¶ 0276]
As to claim 9, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein the prediction is generated based on the refined prediction candidate. [¶ 0184; ¶ 0278-0290]
As to claim 10, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein the prediction candidate being refined is a regular merge candidate. [¶ 0055-0071; ¶ 0275-0297]
As to claim 11, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1. Zhang teaches wherein: the derived model is an affine motion model that is derived by minimizing a difference between regression subblock motion vectors and (i) subblock MVs of subblocks neighboring the current block and (ii) subblock MVs derived from an affine candidate of the current block to refine the affine candidate; and the prediction is generated based on the refined affine candidate. [¶ 0115-0120; ¶ 0203-0218; ¶ 0275-0318]
As to claim 14, Zhang teaches a video coding method comprising: receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video; [abstract; fig. 30; ¶ 0515; ¶ 0550-0551] deriving a linear model to refine an affine candidate by regression to minimize a difference between regression subblock motion vectors and (i) subblock MVs of subblocks neighboring the current block and (ii) subblock MVs derived from the refined affine candidate of the current block; [¶ 0115-0120; ¶ 0203-0218; ¶ 0275-0318] generating a prediction of the current block based on the derived linear model; [abstract; ¶ 0109-0112] and encoding or decoding the current block by using the generated prediction. [abstract; ¶ 0109-0112; ¶ 0515; ¶ 0550-0551]
As to claim 15, Zhang teaches an electronic apparatus comprising: a video decoder circuit configured to perform operations comprising: receiving data for a block of pixels to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video; [abstract; fig. 30; ¶ 0515; ¶ 0550-0551] deriving a linear model to refine or generate a prediction candidate by regression to minimize a difference between samples of a current template neighboring the current block and samples of a reference template identified by the prediction candidate; [¶ 0109-0112; ¶ 0129-0131; ¶ 0188-0196; ¶ 0278-0318] generating a prediction of the current block based on the derived linear model; [abstract; ¶ 0109-0112] and encoding or decoding the current block by using the generated prediction. [abstract; ¶ 0109-0112; ¶ 0515; ¶ 0550-0551]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 2021/0160511 in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang 2) US 2023/0328276.
As to claim 6, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein only a subset of prediction candidates in a list of prediction candidates for the current block are refined by regression for the linear model.
Zhang 2 teaches wherein only a subset of prediction candidates in a list of prediction candidates for the current block are refined by regression for the linear model. [¶ 0104-0121]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Zhang 2 with the teachings of Zhang allowing for improved accuracy and coding efficiency.
As to claim 12, Zhang teaches the limitations of claim 11.
Zhang does not explicitly teach wherein the affine motion model is derived by minimizing differences between the regression subblock motion vectors and (i) stored subblock MVs associated with subblocks neighboring the current block and (ii) inherited MVs associated with subblocks belonging to a reference affine coding unit (CU).
Zhang 2 teaches wherein the affine motion model is derived by minimizing differences between the regression subblock motion vectors and (i) stored subblock MVs associated with subblocks neighboring the current block and (ii) inherited MVs associated with subblocks belonging to a reference affine coding unit (CU). [¶ 0031-0033; ¶ 0131-0138; ¶ 0276]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Zhang 2 with the teachings of Zhang allowing for improved accuracy and coding efficiency.
As to claim 13, Zhang (modified by Zhang 2) teaches the limitations of claim 12. Zhang 2 teaches wherein the reference affine CU is not adjacent to the current block. [¶ 0268]
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. US 2021/0160511 in view of Zhang et al. (Zhang 2) US 2023/0328276 further in view of Leleannec et al. US 2022/0078488.
As to claim 7, Zhang (modified by Zhang 2) teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Zhang (modified by Zhang 2) does not explicitly teach wherein the subset of prediction candidates are merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) candidates that are identified based on proximity to a specific direction.
Leleannec teaches wherein the subset of prediction candidates are merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) candidates that are identified based on proximity to a specific direction. [¶ 0123]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Leleannec with the teachings of Zhang (modified by Zhang 2) allowing for improved accuracy and coding efficiency.
As to claim 8, Zhang (modified by Zhang 2) teaches the limitations of claim 6.
Zhang (modified by Zhang 2) teaches wherein for each MMVD candidate, only a base motion vector predictor (MVP) is refined by regression.
Leleannec teaches wherein for each MMVD candidate, only a base motion vector predictor (MVP) is refined by regression. [¶ 0105-0113; ¶ 0178-0184]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the techniques of Leleannec with the teachings of Zhang (modified by Zhang 2) allowing for improved accuracy and coding efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNER HOLDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1549. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 571.272.7383. 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.
/ANNER HOLDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights