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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending in this application. Claim 20 has been cancelled. No claim has been amended at this time.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US 20210297704 A1).
Concerning claim 1, Chang et al. (hereinafter Chang) teach a method of video processing, comprising:
applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit, a wrap around motion compensation (WAMC) during a derivation of motion information for the video unit (¶¶0093-0094: wherein the conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video unit is either encoding or decoding); and
performing the conversion based on the derived motion information (¶¶0093-0094: the video encoder/decoder may encode/decode at least one block of a picture in the CLVS using horizontal wrap-around motion compensation).
Concerning claim 2, Chang further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein applying the WAMC during the derivation of the motion information comprises:
applying the WAMC to derive a prediction or reconstruction of the video unit (¶¶0093-0094: prediction of the video unit happens in encoding/reconstruction of the video unit happens in decoding).
Concerning claim 16, Chang further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the WAMC refers to at least one of: horizontal wrap around or vertical wrap around (¶¶0093-0094).
Concerning claim 17, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (¶¶0093-0094).
Claim 18 is the corresponding apparatus to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Chang further teaches a processor and memory to perform encoding and decoding operations (fig. 1; ¶0039).
Claims 19 is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage media to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Chang further teaches implementing the video encoder and video decoder as a non-transitory computer-readable medium (fig. 1; ¶0039).
Concerning claim 21, Chang et al. (hereinafter Chang) teach a method of storing bitstream of a video, comprising:
applying a wrap around motion compensation (WAMC) during a derivation of motion information for the video unit of the video(¶¶0093-0094: horizontal wrap-around motion compensation);
generating a bitstream based on the derived motion information (¶¶0093-0094: the video encoder may encode at least one block of a picture in the CLVS using horizontal wrap-around motion compensation); and
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer readable recording medium (¶¶0031-0032).
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 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20210297704 A1) in view of Luo et al. (US 20210266594 A1).
Concerning claim 7, Chang teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein applying the WAMC during the derivation of the motion information comprises: in accordance with a determination that a motion refinement process is used in the derivation of the motion information, applying the WAMC during the motion refinement process.
Luo et al. (hereinafter Luo), in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method for combining decoder side motion vector refinement with wrap-around vector refinement with wrap-around motion compensation, wherein applying the WAMC during the derivation of the motion information comprises: in accordance with a determination that a motion refinement process is used in the derivation of the motion information, applying the WAMC during the motion refinement process (¶0118 & ¶0132). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Chang and Luo in order to simplify decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process when it is combined with wrap-around motion compensation (Luo, ¶0002).
Concerning claim 9, Chang teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein applying the WAMC during the derivation of the motion information comprises: in accordance with a determination that a prediction of the video unit is adjusted using one or more offsets, applying the WAMC to derive the one or more offsets.
Luo et al. (hereinafter Luo), in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method for combining decoder side motion vector refinement with wrap-around vector refinement with wrap-around motion compensation, wherein applying the WAMC during the derivation of the motion information comprises: in accordance with a determination that a prediction of the video unit is adjusted using one or more offsets, applying the WAMC to derive the one or more offsets (fig. 6B; ¶0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Chang and Luo in order to simplify decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process when it is combined with wrap-around motion compensation (Luo, ¶0002).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20210297704 A1) in view of Ko et al. (US 20210235072 A1).
Concerning claim 8, Chang teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein applying the WAMC during the derivation of the motion information comprises: applying the WAMC during a construction of a motion list of the video unit.
Ko et al. (hereinafter Ko) teach that is well-known to apply motion compensation during a construction of a motion list of the video unit (¶0138). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Chang and Ko in order to increase signaling efficiency related to a motion information set of a current block (Ko, ¶0004).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20210297704 A1) in view of Luo et al. (US 20210266594 A1) and Samuelsson et al. (US 20220272378 A1).
Concerning claim 10, Chang in view of Luo teaches the method of claim 9. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the one or more offsets are derived using a linear model based process, and/or wherein the one or more offsets are derived using an optical flow based process.
Samuelsson et al. (hereinafter Samuelsson) teach a method for performing an adaptive resolution change in video coding, wherein the one or more offsets are derived using a linear model based process, and/or wherein the one or more offsets are derived using an optical flow based process (¶¶0081-0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Chang, Luo and Samuelsson in order to improve the design and allow for an adaptive resolution change (Samuelsson, ¶0001).
Concerning claim 11, Chang in view of Luo and Samuelsson teaches the method of claim 10. Samuelsson further teaches wherein the linear model based process comprises a local illumination compensation (LIC), and/or wherein the optical flow based process comprises one of: a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) (¶¶0081-0084), a sampled-based BDOF, or a prediction refinement with optical flow for affine mode (PROF).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20210297704 A1) in view of He et al. (US 20220377344 A1).
Concerning claim 12, Chang teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein whether a boundary padding process is allowed for the video unit is determined based on whether the wrap around motion compensation (WAMC) is enabled.
He et al. (hereinafter He) teach a method for versatile video coding (VVC), wherein whether a boundary padding process is allowed for the video unit is determined based on whether the wrap around motion compensation (WAMC) is enabled (¶0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Chang and He in order to improve the design and allow for a decision to enable or disable padding for an individual sub-picture (He, ¶0053).
Concerning claim 13, Chang in view of He teaches the method of claim 12. He further teaches, wherein in accordance with a determination that the WAMC is enabled, an out-of-boundary (OOB) checking is not allowed,
and/or wherein in accordance with a determination that the WAMC is enabled, one or more directions of motion compensation boundary padding are disallowed,
and/or wherein a padded area size of motion compensation boundary padding is used in a clipping operation of motion vectors for at least one of: subpicture or (fig. 9; ¶0095) wrap around.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 14-15 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 and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7 of the remarks, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of the remarks, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Concerning the rejection of claim 1, Applicant alleges
“Chang relates to techniques for improving subpicture signaling. Chang at paragraph [0093] states: "[w]hen a part of the reference block is outside of the reference picture's left (or right) boundary in the projected domain, instead of repetitive padding, the 'out-of-boundary' part is taken from the corresponding spherical neighbors..." However, Chang's WAMC disclosure is critically limited to final motion compensation interpolation. Chang's WAMC operates after motion vectors are already determined and is used only for fetching reference samples during the interpolation process. The phrase "when a part of the reference block is outside" in paragraph [0093] assumes that the motion vector pointing to the reference block is already known.”
The examiner disagrees because the paragraph cited by Applicant (i.e., [0093]) does not contain the statement “"[w]hen a part of the reference block is outside of the reference picture's left (or right) boundary in the projected domain, instead of repetitive padding, the 'out-of-boundary' part is taken from the corresponding spherical neighbors...”. Paragraph [0093] of Chang recites
[0093] In accordance with the techniques of this disclosure, video encoder 200 may signal, in a bitstream that comprises an encoded representation of the video data, a first syntax element (e.g., sps_independent_subpics_flag) indicating whether all subpicture boundaries in a CLVS are treated as picture boundaries. Based on not all subpicture boundaries in the CLVS being treated as picture boundaries, video encoder 200 may signal, in the bitstream, a second syntax element (e.g., sps_ref_wraparound_enabled_flag) that specifies whether horizontal wrap-around motion compensation is applied in inter prediction. Based on horizontal wrap-around motion compensation being applied in inter prediction, video encoder 200 may encode at least one block of a picture in the CLVS using horizontal wrap-around motion compensation.
Furthermore, the examiner cannot find the alleged statement anywhere in the Chang reference. Because Chang is the only reference relied upon in the rejection of claim 1, the examiner finds this argument unpersuasive.
Applicant further alleges
“Further, Chang's document structure reveals that WAMC and motion information derivation are treated as completely separate, independent technologies. Chang describes WAMC in Section 2.4 (paragraphs [0089]-[0095]) as part of "360-degree video coding tools." However, when Chang describes motion information derivation processes in other sections, there is no mention of WAMC whatsoever. Specifically, Chang describes template matching based merge candidate reordering in Section 2.27 (paragraphs [0238]-[0250]), decoder side motion vector refinement in Section 2.15 (paragraphs [0159]-[0177]), and extended merge prediction in Section 2.18 (paragraphs [0178]-[0212]). None of these sections mention WAMC, and there are no cross-references between the WAMC section and these motion information derivation sections. This structural separation is strong evidence that Chang does not teach or suggest integrating WAMC into motion information derivation processes.”
Again, the examiner disagrees because the statements and citations Applicant alleges are taught by Chang are not present in the prior art reference. The examiner cannot find anywhere in Chang where there are labelled sections (e.g., Section 2.4, 2.15, 2.27, or Section 2.18) or a description of “360-degree video tools”. Paragraphs [0238]-[0250] do not exist in the Chang reference and the examiner can find no mention of template matching based merge candidate reordering. Paragraphs [0159]-[0177] are not labelled as section 2.15 and do not mention decoder side motion vector refinement. Paragraphs [0178]-[0212] ([0209]-[0212] do not exist) are not labelled as section 2.18 and do not mention extended merge prediction. Because Chang is the only reference relied upon in the rejection of claim 1, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Finally, Applicant alleges
“In addition. Claim 1 requires applying WAMC during the derivation of motion information, which means WAMC affects the derivation process itself, including how template matching costs are calculated, how merge candidates are selected and reordered, and how motion vectors are refined through processes like DMVR. In contrast, Chang's WAMC is applied after motion information is determined and affects only the final prediction samples through reference sample fetching and boundary handling during interpolation. Chang's WAMC does not influence which motion vectors are selected or how motion information is derived; it only affects how those already-determined motion vectors are used to fetch reference samples.”
The examiner disagrees because these arguments are based on the alleged teachings of Chang presented above. It appears Applicant may be citing portions of another prior art reference that is not used in the rejection of clam 1. Because Chang is the only reference relied upon in the rejection of claim 1, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive. . The rejection is maintained. The rejection of independent claims 18-19 and 21 are maintained for the same reasons. The rejection of dependent claims 2, 7-13, and 16-17 are also maintained for the same reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights