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) submitted on 01/06/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12219125 in view of Kondo et al. (US 20190020891) (hereinafter Kondo).
Regarding claim 1,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12219125 Claim 1
A method for video decoding, comprising:
A method for video decoding, comprising:
obtaining a bitstream comprising coding information of a plurality of blocks, wherein a video frame is split into the plurality of blocks;
determining whether one or more of a plurality of reference pictures associated with an inter-mode coded block involved in an operation of an inter-mode coding tool are long-term reference pictures based on the coding information; and
determining whether one or more of a plurality of reference pictures associated with an inter-mode coded block involved in an operation of an inter-mode coding tool are long-term reference pictures; and
prohibiting the performance of the inter-mode coding tool on the inter-mode coded block based on the determining that one of two reference pictures of the inter-mode coded block is a long-term reference picture and the other is not a long-term reference picture,
prohibiting the performance of the inter-mode coding tool on the inter-mode coded block based on the determining that one of two reference pictures of the inter-mode coded block is a long-term reference picture and the other is not a long-term reference picture,
wherein the inter-mode coding tool comprises one of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) process or decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process, and wherein the inter-mode coded block is a bi-directional prediction block.
wherein the inter-mode coding tool comprises one of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) process or decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process, and wherein the inter-mode coded block is a bi-directional prediction block.
Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12219125 does not specify a bitstream containing coding information of a plurality of blocks of a split video frame, Kondo paragraph 105 teaches bitstream containing coding information of a plurality of blocks of a split video frame. Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12219125 with the bitstream containing coding information of a plurality of blocks of a split video frame of Kondo in order to have the coding/decoding method include bitstream handling.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 1.
Independent claim(s) 4 is/are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1, against claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12219125 concerning analogous differences in limitations between the claims.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim 10,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12219125 Claim 1
A method for video encoding, comprising:
A method for video decoding, comprising:
splitting a video frame into a plurality of blocks;
determining whether one or more of a plurality of reference pictures associated with an inter-mode coded block involved in an operation of an inter-mode coding tool are long-term reference pictures; and
determining whether one or more of a plurality of reference pictures associated with an inter-mode coded block involved in an operation of an inter-mode coding tool are long-term reference pictures; and
prohibiting the performance of the inter-mode coding tool on the inter-mode coded block based on the determining that one of two reference pictures of the inter-mode coded block is a long-term reference picture and the other is not a long-term reference picture,
prohibiting the performance of the inter-mode coding tool on the inter-mode coded block based on the determining that one of two reference pictures of the inter-mode coded block is a long-term reference picture and the other is not a long-term reference picture,
wherein the inter-mode coding tool comprises one of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) process or decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process, and wherein the inter-mode coded block is a bi-directional prediction block.
wherein the inter-mode coding tool comprises one of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) process or decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process, and wherein the inter-mode coded block is a bi-directional prediction block.
Although claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12219125 does not specify encoding and splitting a video frame into a plurality of blocks, Kondo paragraph 105 teaches encoding and splitting a video frame into a plurality of blocks. Therefore, 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 invention disclosed by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12219125 with the encoding and splitting a video frame into a plurality of blocks of Kondo in order to have the coding/decoding method include encoding and splitting a video frame.
Claim(s) 11-18 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 10.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kondo et al. (US 20190020891) (hereinafter Kondo).
Regarding claim 7, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a method. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is not implementing any method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a method. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by an method).
Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream with video content) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, this claim is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by the recited method) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, this claim is anticipated by Kondo, as Kondo discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream.
Claims 8-9 are rejected for their dependence on claims 7, because they do not contain additional limitations that overcome the present rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under non-statutory double patenting and 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections as detailed above, but would be allowable if those rejections were overcome, due to containing subject matter allowable for the same reasons noted in parent application 17/402466 (US 12219125).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 contains the limitations regarding prohibiting the performance of either BDOF or DMVR if one of two reference pictures of the inter-mode coded block is a long term reference picture and the other is not a long term reference picture. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. Independent claim(s) 4 and 10 contain(s) allowable subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1. The claim(s) depending on these claim(s) contain allowable subject matter for the reasons concerning these claim(s).
The closest prior art, Kondo et al. (US 20190020891), Li et al. (CE11: Results on Composite Reference Picture), Kim et al. (US 20150139321), Li2 et al. (US 20200244979), Jang (US 20220086475), Jeon (US 20050129117), Kondo et al. (US 20040146109), Zhang et al. (US 20170214938), Wahadaniah et al. (US 20130107963), Price et al. (US 20200216026), Choi et al. (US 20160050424), Li et al. (US 10785486), Kim (US 20150195558), Ko et al. (US 20210243476) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. Applicant’s 09/10/2024 remarks in application 17/402466, pages 8-11 cite, ”Kondo discloses some restrictions on the process whether to scaling the motion vector when deriving motion vector candidates for the current block based on whether the relevant reference picture is a long-term reference picture or not, but does not disclose or suggest prohibiting the performance of the inter-mode coding tool on the inter-mode coded block based on the determining that one of two reference pictures of the inter-mode coded block of a plurality of reference pictures is a long-term reference picture and the other is not a long-term reference picture as recited in amended claim 1. Thus, Kondo does not meet the requirements of amended claim 1, as recognized by the rejection.
However, the rejection further alleges that Li remedies the deficiency of Kondo. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Li discloses in Section 2.1 that "if composed long-term reference is used as reference, motion vector scaling and decoder motion refine operation that use motion trajectory are invalid because the distance between the composed long-term reference and the current frame is not available and motion trajectory model doesn't work for this composed reference, Meanwhile, since this reference picture is composed from various coded frames, it's unreasonable to perform motion vector refinement at such picture. Therefore, the tools like BIO, DMVR, FRUC are set to disable if any of the motion vector is referred to the composed long- term reference." In sum, Li at most discloses that if the reference image is a composed long-term reference image, it is not suitable to perform motion vector correction because the composed long-term reference image is based on multiple encoded frames. As a result, tools such as BIO, DMVR, and FRUC are disabled.
In contrast, amended claim 1 recites prohibiting the performance of the inter-mode coding tool based on the determining that one of two reference pictures of the inter-mode coded block is a long-term reference picture and the other is not a long-term reference picture. Unlike Li, where the constraint condition is whether the reference image is a composite long-term reference image, amended claim l's constraint condition is whether one of the two reference images of the inter-mode coded block is a long-term reference image and the other is not a long-term reference image. Thus, Li does not meet the requirements of claim l's constraint condition as well, and does not remedy the deficiency of Kondo.
Furthermore, Kim discloses in paragraphs [0073]-[0075] and [0082] that when one of a reference image 33 of the current block 31 and a reference image 38 of the collocated block 36 is a short-term reference image and the other one is a long-term reference image, a "NOT- AVAILABLE" flag may be allocated to the motion vector 37 of the collocated block 36, which means the motion vector 37 of the collocated block 36 will not used as a candidate for the motion vector 34 of the current block 31.
There are two differences between Kim and amended claim 1:
(1) in the two reference images as shown in above FIG.3 of Kim, one is a reference image 33 of the current block 31, and the other one is a reference image 38 of the collocated block 36, which is not a reference image of the current block 31. The collocated block 36 is a block that is at the same position as the current block 31 of the current image 30, in the collocated image 35. Therefore, the wo reference images in Kim are not two reference images of the current block.
(2) as shown in above reproduced FIG.3 of Kim, when one of a reference image 33 of the current block 31 and a reference image 38 of the collocated block 36 is a short-term reference image and the other one is a long-term reference image, the motion vector 37 of the collocated block 36 will not be used as a candidate for the motion vector 34 of the current block 31. Therefore, the constraint condition "one of two reference pictures associated with the current block is a long- term reference picture and the other is not a long-term reference picture" is used for constraining the process of deriving the motion vector candidate of the current, not for prohibiting the performance of the inter-mode coding tool as recited in amended claim 1.
Moreover, there is no motivation to combine Li and Kim. In detail, in Li, when the reference image is a composite long-term reference image, the inter-mode coding tool is disabled. In Kim, when one of the reference images for the current block and the collocated block is a long- term reference image, and the other one is a short-term reference image, the motion vector of the collocated block is not considered as a candidate for the motion vector of the current block. It can be seen that the constraint condition of Li are is to determine whether to enable inter-mode coding tools such as BIO and DMVR, while the constraint condition of Kim is used to determine whether to derive the motion vector of the current block based on the motion vector of the collocated block. The usage scenarios of the two constraint conditions are completely different, and there is no reason or motivation for those skilled in the art to combine the two to obtain a relevant technical solution of "prohibiting the performance of the inter-mode coding tool on the inter-mode coded block based on the determining that one of two reference pictures of the inter-mode coded block is a long-term reference picture and the other is not a long-term reference picture." Examiner agrees with applicant’s assertion that Kondo, Li, and Kim’s teachings, which represent the best prior art, would not be motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the condition of reference pictures being one long term and the other not long term as a determining factor in using DMVR or BDOF. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483