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 .
Examiner Remarks
Claims are interpreted in the alternative only.
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 – 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (US 2023/0217012) (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 15, Huang teaches a video coding method (e.g. Fig. 7 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing a video coding method), an electronic apparatus comprising a video coder circuit configured to perform operations of the method (e.g. Figs. 1, 3, and 4, and pars. 27, 124, and 129: depicting and describing an electronic apparatus including a processing circuit configured to perform operations of the video coding method) , and a video decoding method (e.g. Fig. 7 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing a video decoding method), the method comprising:
receiving a reference picture list (RPL) for a current coding tree unit (CTU) of the current picture, the RPL identifying a plurality of reference pictures (e.g. Fig. 7 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing that the system obtains a reference picture list for a first block in the current picture, the reference picture list identifying a number of reference pictures, wherein the block is a CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]);
assigning indices to the plurality of reference pictures in the RPL of the current CTU (e.g. Fig. 7 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing that the system assigns indices to the plurality of reference pictures in the reference pictures list [element 404] for the current block, wherein the block is a CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]);
receiving data to be encoded or decoded as a plurality of blocks of the current CTU (e.g. Fig. 7 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing that the system obtains data of the current block, wherein the block is a CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]); and
encoding or decoding the plurality of blocks of the CTU by using the assigned indices to select one or more reference pictures from the RPL to generate inter-predictions (e.g. Fig. 7 and pars. 181 – 188: depicting and describing that the system decodes the current block using the assigned indices to predict the current block, wherein the block is a CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]).
Turning to claim 2, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Huang further teaches:
wherein the indices are assigned to the plurality of reference pictures in the RPL based on explicit signaling (par. 75: describing that the reference picture list order is explicitly signaled, wherein signaling the reference picture list order is the equivalent of the indices being assigned based on explicit signaling).
Regarding claim 3, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Huang further teaches:
deriving a representative motion vector (MV) of the current CTU (e.g. pars. 79 – 85: describing that the system derives representative motion for the current block, wherein the current block is the equivalent of the CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]); and
computing costs for the plurality of reference pictures, wherein the cost of each reference picture is computed based on (i) neighboring samples of the current CTU and (ii) reference samples in the reference picture identified by the representative MV, wherein the indices are assigned to the plurality of reference pictures in the RPL based on the computed costs (e.g. pars. 79 – 85: describing that the system determines a template matching cost between the current block and the reference block determined using the representative motion, then assigns indices to the reference pictures based on the computed template costs, wherein the template matching cost is the equivalent of the cost based on neighboring samples of the current CTU and reference samples in the reference picture [see, e.g. Fig. 2 and pars. 94 – 96: depicting and describing that a template includes neighboring samples of the current block and reference samples in a reference picture]).
Turning to claim 4, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as discussed above. Huang further teaches:
wherein the representative MV is derived from MVs used to reconstruct one or more blocks neighboring the current CTU (e.g. pars. 79 – 85: describing that the system determines actual motion of the block, including when the block is coded in merge mode [see, e.g. pars. 61 – 62: describing that the block is coded in merge mode], wherein it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art that blocks coded in merge mode obtain motion information from blocks neighboring the current block, wherein the block is the equivalent of the CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]).
Regarding claim 5, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4, as discussed above. Huang further teaches:
wherein the representative MV is a weighted average of the MVs used to reconstruct the blocks neighboring the current CTU (e.g. pars. 79 – 85: describing that the system determines actual motion of the block, when actual motion of the block includes the use of multiple motion vectors, the system performs weighted averaging of the motion vectors [see, e.g. par. 135: describing that when motion of a block is determined using more than one motion vector, the system performs weighted averaging of the motion vectors], wherein the block is the equivalent of the CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]).
Turning to claim 6, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3. Huang further teaches:
wherein the representative MV is derived from MVs from one or more blocks in the current CTU (e.g. pars. 79 – 85: describing that the system determines actual motion of the block, wherein the block is the equivalent of the CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]).
Regarding claim 7, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 6, as discussed above. Huang further teaches:
wherein the representative MV is a weighted average of the MVs from the one or more blocks in the current CTU (e.g. pars. 79 – 85: describing that the system determines actual motion of the block, when actual motion of the block includes the use of multiple motion vectors, the system performs weighted averaging of the motion vectors [see, e.g. par. 135: describing that when motion of a block is determined using more than one motion vector, the system performs weighted averaging of the motion vectors], wherein the block is the equivalent of the CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]).
Turning to claim 8, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as discussed above. Huang further teaches:
wherein the representative MV is derived from temporal MVs from a collocated CTU or a reference picture CTU (e.g. pars. 79 – 85: describing that the motion of the block is derived using Advanced Motion Vector Prediction (AMVP), wherein it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art that motion for a block obtain using AMVP is derived from temporal MVs from a collocated block, wherein the block is the equivalent of the CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]).
Regarding claim 9, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 8, as discussed above. Huang further teaches:
wherein the representative MV is a weighted average of the temporal MVs from the collocated CTU or the reference picture CTU (e.g. pars. 79 – 85: describing that the system determines actual motion of the block, when actual motion of the block includes the use of multiple motion vectors, the system performs weighted averaging of the motion vectors [see, e.g. par. 135: describing that when motion of a block is determined using more than one motion vector, the system performs weighted averaging of the motion vectors], wherein the block is the equivalent of the CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]).
Turning to claim 10, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as discussed above. Huang further teaches:
wherein the representative MV is derived from MVs inherited from neighboring locations of the current CTU (e.g. pars. 79 – 85: describing that the system determines actual motion of the block, including when the block is coded in merge mode [see, e.g. pars. 61 – 62: describing that the block is coded in merge mode] or AMVP mode, wherein it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art that blocks coded in merge mode or AMVP obtain motion information from blocks neighboring the current block, wherein the block is the equivalent of the CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]).
Regarding claim 11, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as discussed above. Huang further teaches:
wherein a motion vector predictor (MVP) of a block in the current CTU is used as the representative MV of the CTU (e.g. pars. 79 – 85: describing that the system uses a motion vector predictor (MVP) of the current block as the representative motion).
Turning to claim 12, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as discussed above. Huang further teaches:
wherein the neighboring samples of the current CTU are in CTUs neighboring the current CTU (e.g. Fig. 2 and pars. 94 – 96: depicting and describing that a template includes neighboring blocks of the current block, wherein a block is a CTU [see, e.g. par. 54: describing that a block refers to a CTU]).
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.
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) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (US 2023/0217012) (hereinafter Huang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2016/0156937) (hereinafter Yang).
Regarding claim 13, Huang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Huang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the indices are assigned to the plurality of reference pictures in the RPL based on a history-based table that records the distribution of reference picture selections when encoding or decoding each CTU of the current picture.
Yang, however, teaches a method for video coding:
wherein the indices are assigned to the plurality of reference pictures in the RPL based on a history-based table that records the distribution of reference picture selections when encoding or decoding each CTU of the current picture ( e.g. pars. 15 – 16, 21-22, and 25: describing that the system modifies reference picture indices based on decoding history information related to the reference picture, wherein the decoding history information related to the reference picture reasonably suggests the history-based table that records the distribution of reference picture selections when encoding/decoding each CTU of the current picture).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Huang by adding the teachings of Yang in order for the indices to be assigned to the plurality of reference pictures in the RPL based on a history-based table that records the distribution of reference picture selections when encoding or decoding each CTU of the current picture. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US2013/0315311 – teaching reordering reference picture lists for a current block based on a determined priority for the current block
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights