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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (Chinese Filed PCT Application CN2022/105264 filed July 12th, 2022).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention III in the reply filed on March 23rd, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 4 – 7, 11 – 12, and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions I, II, and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 23rd, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The pending claims are 1, 3, 8 – 10, 13 – 14, and 16 – 20.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 10th, 2025; October 28th, 2025; February 11th, 2026; and March 3rd, 2026 was filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Due to the excessively lengthy Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is required to comply with this statement for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract contains legalese language copying claim language from claim 1 instead being a series of brief sentences in narrative format. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cause the processor to: …” in claim 18.
The Examiner notes the claimed “non-transitory memory” and “processor” are being afforded status as connoting sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art; thus the terms do NOT invoke Functional Analysis.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8 – 10, 13 – 14, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites "conversion" which has Indefinite metes and bounds as processes (e.g. encoding) and their inverse (e.g. decoding) are encompassed thus the claim has Indefinite metes and bounds as the steps of the claim have no distinction between such processes. Further, the claim raises issues regarding Essential Steps as the claim omits the encoder deriving the partition information and the decoder receiving the tile partition information.
Regarding claims 18 – 20, see claim 1 which performs the steps of the claimed apparatus (claim 18), program (claim 19), and product by process (claim 20) and thus are similarly Rejected.
Regarding claims 2 – 5 and 7 – 8, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly Rejected. While claim 16 and 17 are not Rejected, the inclusion of only one of the respective dependent claims (not both simultaneously) would overcome the Rejection of claim 1 and the recitation of the other would result in improper dependency issues (e.g. a decoder depending on an encoder as the inverse process depending on the forward process or vice versa).
Regarding claim 18, the recited "apparatus for video processing" has Indefinite metes and bounds as the preamble is ordinarily not afforded patentable weight and additionally the claim is Indefinite if the recitation is intended as a functional recitation of the claimed "apparatus".
Claim limitations:
“method for video processing” [Claim 1]; and
“for a conversion …” [Claim 1]
has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the preamble while ordinarily is not afforded patentable weight is Indefinite as to the patentable weight to afford the preamble and further the use of “for” is Indefinite as to being a “step for” recitation where the method claim would then invoke Functional Analysis. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claim 3, 8 – 10, 13 – 14, and 16 – 17, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1 and thus are similarly Rejected.
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.
(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) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0392743 A1 referred to as “Kim” throughout).
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing [Kim Figures 1 – 2 (encoder / decoder processing a bitstream) as well as Paragraphs 32, 557 – 559 (encoding / decoding bitstream), and 2141 – 2148 (computer readable medium to store bitstreams (e.g. Paragraphs 2145 – 2148)) and additional embodiments storing bitstreams from encoding / decoding) where there is no structural differences in the bitstream see MPEP2113 I], wherein the method comprises [The method steps do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream (product) generated / created is given weight (see MPEP2113 I and II)].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1, 3, and 16 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
Regarding claim 1, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 18 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed program.
Regarding claim 20, while the method steps are not afforded patentable weight (product by process claim), in the sole interest to expedite prosecution the claim when afforded patentable weight is similarly rejected to claim 1 as the method claimed and in view of the Kim citations in the 102 Rejection (see above) as the non-transitory medium storing a program to perform a method to generate a bitstream.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches
determining a plurality of costs associated with a plurality of candidate sign predictions of the BVD [Kim Figures 43 – 46 (MVD / BVD sign prediction included in finding BVD / MVD for the current block) as well as Paragraphs 1934 – 1947 and 1951 (plurality of sign candidates and matching / similarity costs for each sign candidate is computed and sorting the costs (Paragraph 1943)) and 1956 – 1978 (BVD sign prediction with additional considerations)]; and
determining the sign prediction of the BVD based on the plurality of costs [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1922 – 1923 (lowest cost used for the predictor) and 1934 – 1947 (lowest cost for the sign predictor selected), 1951, and 1956 – 1978 (BVD sign prediction with additional considerations)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize variants within Kim of encoding or decoding the sign information of BVD / MVD / MBVD / MMVD (e.g. see at least Paragraphs 1923 and 2097) where the various types of vectors are considered obvious variants as vectors have sign and magnitude information as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches
wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream [Kim Figures 1, 16 (encoder see at least reference character 100 and 1600) and 41 – 42 (conversion based on BVD data) as well as Paragraphs 779 – 791 (decoder implementation as processor / memory to implement programs) and 1963 – 1978 (coding / decoding the sign of the BVD)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize variants within Kim of encoding the sign information of BVD / MVD / MBVD / MMVD (e.g. see at least Paragraphs 1923 and 2097) where the various types of vectors are considered obvious variants as vectors have sign and magnitude information as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Kim teaches
wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block into the bitstream [Kim Figures 2, 17 (decoder see at least reference character 200 and 1700) and 41 – 42 (conversion based on BVD data) as well as Paragraphs 760 – 769 (implementation of encoder with memory and instructions / programs) and 1963 – 1978 (coding / decoding the sign of the BVD)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize variants within Kim of decoding the sign information of BVD / MVD / MBVD / MMVD (e.g. see at least Paragraphs 1923 and 2097) where the various types of vectors are considered obvious variants as vectors have sign and magnitude information as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches
a processor [Kim Figures 16 – 17 (see at least reference character 1610 and 1710) as well as Paragraphs 761, 767, 779, and 784 (processor based implementations of encoder / decoder)] and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor [Kim Figures 16 – 17 (see at least reference character 1630, 1631, 1632, 1640, and 1730, 1731, 1732, 1740) as well as Paragraphs 760 – 769 (implementation of encoder with memory and instructions / programs), 779 – 791 (decoder implementation as processor / memory to implement programs) and 2141 – 2148 (computer readable medium to store bitstreams (e.g. Paragraphs 2145 – 2148))], cause the processor to:
determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video [Kim Figures 1 – 2 and 16 – 17 (encoder and decoder see at least reference character 100, 200, 1600, and 1700) as well as Paragraphs 761, 767, 779, and 784 (encoding / decoding apparatus)], a sign prediction of a block vector difference (BVD) of the current video block [Kim Figures 43 – 46 (MVD / BVD sign prediction included in finding BVD / MVD for the current block) as well as Paragraphs 1934 – 1947 and 1951 (plurality of sign candidates and matching / similarity costs for each sign candidate is computed and sorting the costs (Paragraph 1943)) and 1956 – 1978 (BVD sign prediction with additional considerations)];
determine the BVD at least based on the sign prediction of the BVD [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1951, and 1956 – 1978 (BVD sign prediction with additional considerations and forming the BVD based on sign / magnitude information to encode / decode)]; and
perform the conversion based on the BVD [Kim Figures 1 – 2, 16 – 17 (encoder and decoder see at least reference character 100, 200, 1600, and 1700), 41 – 42, 44 – 46, and 50 – 51 (41 – 42 general encode / decode based on motion information and 44 – 46) as well as Paragraphs 761, 767, 779, and 784 (encoding / decoding apparatus), 1942 – 1949 (predicting BVD signs), and 1963 – 1978 (coding / decoding the sign of the BVD)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize variants within Kim of encoding or decoding the sign information of BVD / MVD / MBVD / MMVD (e.g. see at least Paragraphs 1923 and 2097) where the various types of vectors are considered obvious variants as vectors have sign and magnitude information as known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 8 – 10 and 13 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Yu, et al (WO2023/131546 A1 referred to as “Yu” throughout).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches sign prediction techniques for BVD / MVD usage in coding tools. Yu teaches techniques to code the magnitude information of components of the BVD / MVD (motion vector information) with the sign prediction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yu with the magnitude component prediction / coding techniques as taught by Yu. The combination teaches
wherein determining the plurality of costs associated with the plurality of candidate sign predictions [Kim Figures 43 – 46 (MVD / BVD sign prediction included in finding BVD / MVD for the current block) as well as Paragraphs 1934 – 1947 and 1951 (plurality of sign candidates and matching / similarity costs for each sign candidate is computed and sorting the costs (Paragraph 1943)) and 1956 – 1978 (BVD sign prediction with additional considerations)] comprises:
determining a magnitude of the BVD [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1890, 1938 and 1944 – 1951 (see the absBVD syntax element for magnitude of components) and 1953 – 1978 (magnitude of BVD determines / predicted / coded into the bitstream) combinable with Yu Figures 6, 10, and 14 – 16 (method processing components) as well as Paragraphs 52 – 54 (magnitude determinations of motion vectors), 73, 78, 112, and 154 – 158 (magnitudes of components)];
determining a plurality of block vector (BV) candidates based on the magnitude of the BVD [In combination with the next limitation / citation see also Yu Figures 6 and 10 – 11 (MV candidates – obvious variant of the claimed BVD in view of Kim)) as well as Paragraphs 104 – 108 (multiple candidates of MVDs / BVDs for cost computation / consideration)], the plurality of candidate sign predictions, and a BV prediction of the current video block [In combination with the previous limitation see additionally Kim Figures 43 – 46 (MVD / BVD sign prediction included in finding BVD / MVD for the current block) as well as Paragraphs 1934 – 1947 and 1951 (plurality of sign candidates and matching / similarity costs for each sign candidate is computed and sorting the costs (Paragraph 1943 with 4 candidates as an example) with magnitude of BVD considered too) and 1956 – 1978 (BVD sign prediction with additional considerations)]; and
determining the plurality of costs [In combination with the next limitation / citation see also Yu Paragraph 74 – 76 (best similarity score for the MVD / BVD candidates rendering obvious a plurality of costs (to modify Kim in next citation)), and 110 – 112 (bit cost of MVD / BVD information which would be obvious to duplicate (MPEP2144.04 VI B))] of the plurality of BV candidates [In combination with the previous limitation see additionally Kim Figures 43 – 46 (MVD / BVD sign prediction included in finding BVD / MVD for the current block) as well as Paragraphs 1934 – 1947 and 1951 (plurality of sign candidates and matching / similarity costs for each sign candidate is computed and sorting the costs (Paragraph 1943) with magnitude of BVD considered too) and 1956 – 1978 (BVD sign prediction with additional considerations);].
The motivation to combine Yu with Kim is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of video encoding / decoding [Yu Paragraphs 1 – 3 and 52 – 54] in order to improve coding efficiency of motion / block vector information by reducing the number of bits needed [Yu Paragraphs 52 – 57 and 104 – 107 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) is also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Km and Yu which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches sign prediction techniques for BVD / MVD usage in coding tools. Yu teaches techniques to code the magnitude information of components of the BVD / MVD (motion vector information) with the sign prediction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yu with the magnitude component prediction / coding techniques as taught by Yu. The combination teaches
wherein the magnitude of the BVD comprises a first magnitude of a first component of the BVD and a second magnitude of a second component of the BVD [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1890, 1938 and 1944 – 1951 (see the absBVD syntax element for magnitude of components (x and y components for the first / second components)) and 1953 – 1978 (magnitude of BVD determines / predicted / coded into the bitstream) combinable with Yu Figures 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 as well as Paragraphs 58, 62, and 72 – 74 (partial / predicted component information for candidates) and 104 – 107 and 109 – 113 (similarity of the component computed for the candidates for the x and y components of the candidates for selection for the overall vector determination and coding / prediction)], and
wherein for a candidate sign prediction of the plurality of candidate sign predictions, a corresponding BV candidate of the plurality of BV candidates is determined based on the first magnitude, the second magnitude, a first component of the candidate sign prediction, a second component of the candidate sign prediction, and the BV prediction [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1890, 1922 – 1925 and 1935 – 1938 (sign and magnitude of vector to predict and candidate list formed in Paragraph 1933) and 1940 – 1951 (see the absBVD syntax element for magnitude of components with sign considerations for each candidate adding predictors to form actual / final vectors with sign / magnitude considered) and 1953 – 1978 (magnitude of BVD determines / predicted / coded into the bitstream with sign information) combinable with Yu Figures 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 as well as Paragraphs 58, 62 – 64 (sign prediction / signaling based on magnitude / which predictor is signaled), and 72 – 74 (partial / predicted component information for candidates), 104 – 107 and 109 – 113 (similarity of the component computed for the candidates for the x and y components of the candidates for selection for the overall vector determination and coding / prediction with sign information considered), 133 – 139 (sign information with magnitudes in predicting / coding / decoding MVD / BVD)].
See claim 8 for the motivation to combine Kim and Yu.
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches sign prediction techniques for BVD / MVD usage in coding tools. Yu teaches techniques to code the magnitude information of components of the BVD / MVD (motion vector information) with the sign prediction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yu with the magnitude component prediction / coding techniques as taught by Yu. The combination teaches
determining a first BVD component based on the first magnitude and the first component of the candidate sign prediction [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1890, 1922 – 1925 and 1931 – 1938 (sign and magnitude of vector to predict and candidate list formed in Paragraph 1933) and 1940 – 1951 (see the absBVD syntax element for magnitude of components with sign considerations for each candidate adding predictors to form actual / final vectors with sign / magnitude considered) and 1953 – 1978 (magnitude of BVD determines / predicted / coded into the bitstream with sign information) combinable with Yu Figures 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 as well as Paragraphs 58, 62 – 64 (sign prediction / signaling based on magnitude / which predictor is signaled), and 72 – 74 (partial / predicted component information for candidates), 104 – 107 and 109 – 113 (similarity of the component computed for the candidates for the x and y components of MVD0 and MVD1 (first / second predictor) of the candidates for selection for the overall vector determination and coding / prediction with sign information considered), 133 – 139 (sign information with magnitudes in predicting / coding / decoding MVD0 and MVD1 / BVD1 (first / second predictor))];
determining a second BVD component based on the second magnitude and the second component of the candidate sign prediction [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1890, 1922 – 1925 and 1931 – 1938 (sign and magnitude of vector to predict and candidate list formed in Paragraph 1933) and 1940 – 1951 (see the absBVD syntax element for magnitude of components with sign considerations for each candidate adding predictors to form actual / final vectors with sign / magnitude considered) and 1953 – 1978 (magnitude of BVD determines / predicted / coded into the bitstream with sign information) combinable with Yu Figures 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 as well as Paragraphs 58, 62 – 64 (sign prediction / signaling based on magnitude / which predictor is signaled), and 72 – 74 (partial / predicted component information for candidates), 104 – 107 and 109 – 113 (similarity of the component computed for the candidates for the x and y components of MVD0 and MVD1 (first / second predictor) of the candidates for selection for the overall vector determination and coding / prediction with sign information considered), 133 – 139 (sign information with magnitudes in predicting / coding / decoding MVD0 and MVD1 / BVD1 (first / second predictor))]; and
determining a sum of a combination of the first BVD component and the second BVD component, and the BV prediction as the corresponding BV candidate [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1890, 1922 – 1925 and 1931 – 1938 (sign and magnitude of vector to predict and candidate list formed in Paragraph 1933) and 1940 – 1951 (in particular Paragraph 1944 for the sum of components for each candidate) and 1953 – 1978 (magnitude of BVD determines / predicted / coded into the bitstream with sign information) combinable with Yu Figures 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 as well as Paragraphs 58, 62 – 64 (sign prediction / signaling based on magnitude / which predictor is signaled), and 72 – 74 (partial / predicted component information for candidates), 104 – 107 and 109 – 113 (similarity of the component computed for the candidates for the x and y components of MVD0 and MVD1 (first / second predictor) of the candidates for selection for the overall vector determination and coding / prediction with sign information considered), 133 – 139 (sign information with magnitudes in predicting / coding / decoding MVD0 and MVD1 / BVD1 (first / second predictor))].
See claim 8 for the motivation to combine Kim and Yu.
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches sign prediction techniques for BVD / MVD usage in coding tools. Yu teaches techniques to code the magnitude information of components of the BVD / MVD (motion vector information) with the sign prediction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yu with the magnitude component prediction / coding techniques as taught by Yu. The combination teaches
wherein determining the BVD [See claim 1 / 18 for same / similar limitation for citations] comprises:
determining a magnitude prediction of the BVD [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1890, 1938 and 1944 – 1951 (see the absBVD syntax element for magnitude of components (x and y components for the first / second components)) and 1953 – 1978 (magnitude of BVD determines / predicted / coded into the bitstream) combinable with Yu Figures 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 as well as Paragraphs 58, 62, and 72 – 74 (partial / predicted component information for candidates) and 104 – 107 and 109 – 113 (best similarity of the component computed for the candidates for the x and y components of the candidates for selection for the overall vector determination and coding / prediction)]; and
determining the BVD based on the sign prediction [See claim 1 for “sign prediction” determinations] and the magnitude prediction [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1890, 1938 and 1944 – 1951 (see the absBVD syntax element for magnitude of components (x and y components for the first / second components)) and 1953 – 1978 (magnitude of BVD determines / predicted / coded into the bitstream with sign information) combinable with Yu Figures 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 as well as 72 – 76 (components for vectors with sign considerations), 106 – 112 and 125 – 128 (predictor / MVD / BVD selection based on similarity scores in which the sign and component information are coded)].
See claim 8 for the motivation to combine Kim and Yu.
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches sign prediction techniques for BVD / MVD usage in coding tools. Yu teaches techniques to code the magnitude information of components of the BVD / MVD (motion vector information) with the sign prediction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Yu with the magnitude component prediction / coding techniques as taught by Yu. The combination teaches
wherein the magnitude prediction comprises a first magnitude prediction component of a first component of the BVD and a second magnitude prediction component of a second component of the BVD [Kim Figures 43 – 46 as well as Paragraphs 1890, 1938 and 1944 – 1951 (see the absBVD syntax element for magnitude of components (x and y components for the first / second components)) and 1953 – 1978 (magnitude of BVD determines / predicted / coded into the bitstream) combinable with Yu Figures 10 – 12 and 14 – 16 as well as Paragraphs 58, 62, and 72 – 74 (partial / predicted component information for candidates) and 104 – 107 and 109 – 113 (similarity of the component computed for the candidates for the x and y components of the candidates for selection for the overall vector determination and coding / prediction)].
See claim 8 for the motivation to combine Kim and Yu.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Li, et al (US PG PUB 2023/0412794 A1 referred to as “Li” throughout) teaches in Figures 22 – 27 and Tables 3 – 5 vector coding / BVD determinations similar to the claimed invention.
Reference which has the same effective filing date as the present application: Li, et al. (US PG PUB 2024/0031595 A1 referred to as “Li 95” throughout)
Reference considered for ODP Rejections: Deng, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0373811 A1 referred to as “Deng” throughout)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487