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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-10, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESENLIK et al. (US 20200137415 A1, hereinafter “ESENLIK”) in view of CHEN et al. (US 20250233982 A1, hereinafter “CHEN”).
Regarding Claim 1. ESENLIK discloses a method for motion estimation, comprising:
determining candidate search spaces and candidate search starting points based on a 0084 and 0127; Figure 3; “[0127] Advantageously, the search space, which is determined in the first stage 301 of the search space construction of FIG. 3, includes the initial estimate of the motion vector MV0 and candidate motion vectors pointing to the positions adjacent, i.e. the nearest neighbors of the initial estimate of the motion vector in a pixel resolution of the first search space to the position pointed to by MV0. In other words, the first search space has a “cross” geometry, in contrast to the first embodiment in which a first search space having a “square” geometry (shape) is constructed in the first stage 301 of the first stage construction. However, it is noted that the first search space may have any shape, as long as the same search space is utilized both in the encoder and decoder. It is advantageous for the simplicity of the implementation, if the search space has a certain predefined form such as the cross or square geometry or any other arrangement, and the location of the initial vector MV0 merely determined the position of such first search space. On the other hand, the present disclosure may also work with a first search space of which the size (in terms of positions pointed to by candidate MVs) and/or shape differ.”);
determining a target search starting point from the candidate search starting points and determining a target search space from the candidate search spaces (0138; Figures 3 and 13-14; “[0138] According to a third exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, for the selection 302 of a first and second candidate motion vector, the template matching costs are computed for four candidate motion vectors pointing at positions around the starting position at which the initial estimate MV0 of the motion vector points. In particular, in order to determine the second search space, the matching costs of the pixel positions are evaluated which are adjacent in the pixel resolution of the first search space to the position pointed at by the estimate MV0 of the motion vector. A pixel position is determined to be pointed at by a first candidate motion vector of the second search space which is adjacent in the pixel resolution of the first search space to the positions pointed to by said first and second candidate motion vectors and different from the position pointed to by the estimate of the motion vector. This first candidate motion vector points onto a quadrant where the matching costs are expected to decrease, as shown in FIG. 14.”);
performing a search based on the target search starting point and the target search space to obtain an initial motion estimation result for the current block (0084, 0096 and 0099; Figures 3-4, 15 and 18; “[0084] In other words, based on the initial motion vector MV0, a first search space including a plurality of candidate motion vectors is determined 301. In the first search space, a first candidate motion vector and a second candidate motion vector are identified 302 according to a cost function. Based on the first and the second candidate motion vectors, a second search space is determined 303 including one or more candidate motion vectors. From among the candidate motion vectors of both the first search space and the second search space, the motion vector MV0″ for the current block is selected by the motion vector selecting unit 340. In particular, the candidate is found that minimizes the cost function after the second search space has been evaluated, and this candidate is selected as the final motion vector MV0″ to be applied in the inter-prediction. ...”);
obtaining a target motion estimation result for the current block based on the initial motion estimation result (0063; “[0063] The inter prediction unit 110 receives as an input a block of a current frame or picture to be inter coded and one or several reference frames or pictures from the frame buffer 107. Motion estimation and motion compensation are performed by the inter prediction unit 110. The motion estimation is used to obtain a motion vector and a reference frame, e.g., based on a cost function. The motion compensation then describes a current block of the current frame in terms of the translation of a reference block of the reference frame to the current frame, i.e. by a motion vector. ...”).
ESENLIK failed to disclose the determining candidate search spaces and candidate search starting points are based on a lookahead.
CHEN, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows determining candidate search spaces and candidate search starting points based on a lookahead motion vector and a predicted search starting point of a current block (0072-0074 and 0083-0085; Figures 4 and 5; “[0072] FIG. 4 shows an example of a lookahead subblock-level motion vector by using the first inter prediction method in a forward reference list (e.g., the reference list 0). As shown in FIG. 4, a current block (402) is positioned in a current picture (404). The current block (402) includes a plurality of subblocks and has a spatial neighboring coded block (406). A DV (408) is derived based on a motion vector of the spatial neighboring coded block (406). A reference block (412) is defined in a reference picture (410) according to the DV (408). The reference picture (410) may be included in the forward reference list. The reference block (412) may include a plurality of subblocks, such as four subblocks: a top-left subblock (0, 0), a top-right subblock (0, 1), a bottom-left subblock (1, 0), and a bottom-right subblock (1, 1). ...”)
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the lookahead motion vector on motion estimation of CHEN in the determination of the search space employed in motion estimation applied during encoding and decoding of video of ESENLIK to use the future blocks as reference in order to improve motion vector prediction, better bitrate control and higher visual consistency as well as to yield other predictive result.
Regarding Claim 2. Claim 2 have similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejection to claim 1, but claim 2 further recites the
determining a first search space based on the motion vector and the predicted search starting point (see, ESENLIK: Figure 3);
determining a second search space based on the motion vector and the first search space (see, ESENLIK: Figure 3);
using the first search space and the second search space as the candidate search spaces (see, ESENLIK: Figure 3).
Therefore, claim 2 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 5 and 8. Claims 5 and 8 have similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the references as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claims 1 and 2 above.
Regarding Claims 9-10, 13 and 16. The electronic device claims 9-10, 13 and 16 are drawn to the device corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 1-2, 5 and 8. Therefore, device claims 9-10, 13 and 16 correspond to method claims 1-2, 5 and 8 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claims 17-18. Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims 17-18 are drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claims 1-2. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims 17-18 corresponds to the method claims 1-2, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 11-12, 14-15 and 19-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights