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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-19 and 21 are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-4, 6-19 and 21 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Chen et al. (US 2023/0156181 A1). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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, 4, 10-12, 16-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20200404253 A1, hereinafter Chen) in view of Chen et al. (US 20230156181 A1, hereinafter Chen(2)).
Concerning claim 1, Chen teaches a method of video processing, comprising:
applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (fig. 3: video decoding), at least one of: a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) or a variant of DMVR to the video unit to refine a motion vector of the video unit (¶0038: applying DMVR to a current block), wherein the video unit is applied with one of: an affine advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode, a subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction (sbTMVP) mode, or an affine merge mode (¶0038: applying DMVR in the context of AMVP and SMVD); and
performing the conversion based on the refined motion vector (¶0038: implementing decoding of the video using the motion vector refined by DMVR),
wherein the video unit is applied with an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) merge mode (¶0038: applying DMVR in the context of AMVP and SMVD). Not explicitly taught is wherein the video unit is coded by a motion pair from a same direction relative to a current picture and [wherein] the video unit belongs to a low-delay picture.
Chen(2) teaches that the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) standard includes bi-prediction motion vectors with both lists pointing to the same direction of the current picture (¶0006) and performing weighted averaging bi-prediction for low-delay pictures (¶0008). Given this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen(2) into the Chen invention. Using bi-prediction with motion vectors in the same direction is well-known and provides compression efficiency in low-latency coding implementations because the system does not have to wait for future frames.
Concerning claim 2, Chen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the DMVR or the variant of DMVR is used to refine a shift motion vector (MV) for the sbTMVP mode, and/or
wherein at least one of the DMVR or the variant of DMVR is used to refine a control point motion vector (CPMV) for the affine merge mode (¶0167; ¶0221: DMVR for affine CPMVs), and/or
wherein at least one of the DMVR or the variant of DMVR is used to refine a control point motion vector (CPMV) for the affine AMVP mode (¶¶0217-0221: DMVR for affine CPMVs).
Concerning claim 4, Chen further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein only a PU level DMVD or DMVR is used, and/or
wherein at least one of the DMVR or the variant of DMVR is applied to the CPMV that meets a DMVR condition or a DMVD condition, and/or
wherein at least one of the DMVR or the variant of DMVR is applied to the CPMV that points to reference pictures from both forward and backward, and/or
wherein at least one of the DMVR or the variant of DMVR is applied to the CPMV pairs for a bi-directional predicted affine AMVP mode (¶0221: DMVR can be applied to bi-directional affine CPMVs for MV refinement).
Concerning claim 10, Chen, now incorporating the teachings of Chen(2), further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein an AMVP MV in the motion pair is determined based on at least one of: a coded motion vector prediction (MVP) index or a coded reference index, and/or wherein a template matching (TM) based refinement is used for the motion pair from a same direction (¶0160: bilateral template matching), and/or wherein if there is a plurality of reference pictures that has a different POC distance from that of an AMVP reference picture, a target reference picture from the plurality of reference pictures is selected to derive a MERGE MV in the motion pair.
Concerning claim 11, Chen(2) further teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the target reference picture is selected based on a distance to a current picture, and/or wherein the target reference picture is selected based on a POC distance (¶0006).
Concerning claim 12, Chen(2) further teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the target reference picture is closer to the current picture than other reference pictures, and/or wherein the target reference picture is closer to then AMVP reference picture than other reference pictures, and/or wherein the target reference picture has a smaller POC value than other reference pictures in the plurality of reference pictures (¶0006), and/or wherein the target reference picture has a greater POC value than other reference pictures in the plurality of reference pictures (¶0006).
Concerning claim 16, Chen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a non-average weighting approach to is applied the video unit (¶0177: bi-prediction with weights (BCW) corresponds to a non-average weighting approach according to Applicant’s Published disclosure (see ¶0411, ¶0675, ¶0701)), wherein the video unit is applied with an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) merge mode (¶¶0035-0037).
Concerning claim 17, Chen further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream (fig. 2: video encoding), or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (fig. 3: video decoding).
Claim 18 is the corresponding apparatus to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Chen further teaches implementing the method in a video encoding and decoding system that contain at least a processor, and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon to execute the method (fig. 1: 100, figs. 2-3; ¶0052).
Claim 19 is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable recording medium to the method of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. Chen further teaches implementing the method in a computer-readable recording medium with instructions thereon to execute the method (¶0052).
Concerning claim 21, Chen teaches a method for storing a bitstream, comprising:
applying, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (fig. 2: video encoding), at least one of: a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) or a variant of DMVR to the video unit to refine a motion vector of the video unit (¶0038: applying DMVR to a current block), wherein the video unit is applied with one of: an affine advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode, a subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction (sbTMVP) mode, or an affine merge mode (¶0038: applying DMVR in the context of AMVP and SMVD); and
generating the bitstream of the video unit based on the refined motion vector (¶0043: video encoder 20 generates a bitstream); and
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (¶¶0046-0047: storing the encoded video data in a computer-readable medium that includes a storage device),
wherein the video unit is applied with an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) merge mode (¶0038: applying DMVR in the context of AMVP and SMVD). Not explicitly taught is wherein the video unit is coded by a motion pair from a same direction relative to a current picture and [wherein] the video unit belongs to a low-delay picture.
Chen(2) teaches that the Versatile Video Coding (VVC) standard includes bi-prediction motion vectors with both lists pointing to the same direction of the current picture (¶0006) and performing weighted averaging bi-prediction for low-delay pictures (¶0008). Given this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen(2) into the Chen invention. Using bi-prediction with motion vectors in the same direction is well-known and provides compression efficiency in low-latency coding implementations because the system does not have to wait for future frames.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20200404253 A1, hereinafter Chen) in view of Chen et al. (US 20230156181 A1, hereinafter Chen(2)) and Zhang et al. (US 20210152846 A1, hereinafter Zhang).
Concerning claim 3, Chen in view of Chen(2) teaches the method of claim 2. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the shift MV is bi-directional predicted, and/or wherein the shift MV points to two reference pictures from both forward and backward, and/or wherein the shift MV that meets a DMVR condition or a decoder side motion vector difference (DMVD) condition is generated for the sbTMVP mode, and/or wherein the shift MV is used to derive motion vectors from corresponding prediction units (PUs) in reference pictures.
Zhang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the shift MV is bi-directional predicted (fig. 10; ¶0083: bi-directional MV along the motion trajectory of the current CU), and/or wherein the shift MV points to two reference pictures from both forward and backward (fig. 10; ¶0083: bi-directional MV along the motion trajectory of the current CU), and/or wherein the shift MV that meets a DMVR condition or a decoder side motion vector difference (DMVD) condition is generated for the sbTMVP mode, and/or wherein the shift MV is used to derive motion vectors from corresponding prediction units (PUs) in reference pictures . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the teachings of Zhang to the Chen in view of Chen(2) invention in order to derive motion information of the current CU (Zhang, ¶0083).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20200404253 A1, hereinafter Chen) in view of Chen et al. (US 20230156181 A1, hereinafter Chen(2)) and Yu et al. (US 20240333968 A1, hereinafter Yu).
Concerning claim 6, Chen in view of Chen(2) teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) of the video unit is off, and/or wherein a reference picture resampling (RPR) of the video unit is on.
Yu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that in the VVC coding standard there are conditions that must be met in order for DMVR to be applied (¶0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to turn a DMVR off for the video unit off when DMVR is not applicable (i.e., the conditions are not met).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20200404253 A1, hereinafter Chen) in view of Chen et al. (US 20230156181 A1, hereinafter Chen(2)) and Li et al. (WO 2020244658 A1, hereinafter Li).
Concerning claim 8, Chen in view of Chen(2) teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, further comprising: for a generation of an AMVP merge list, applying a two-step reference picture checking procedure to the video unit, and wherein applying the two-step reference picture checking procedure comprises: determining whether a first condition is fulfilled; and/or if the first condition is not fulfilled, determining whether a second condition is fulfilled.
Li, in the same field of endeavor,: for a generation of an AMVP merge list, applying a two-step reference picture checking procedure to the video unit, and wherein applying the two-step reference picture checking procedure comprises: determining whether a first condition is fulfilled; and/or if the first condition is not fulfilled, determining whether a second condition is fulfilled (p. 56, “21. The motion candidate list construction process” – conditions for constructing an AMVP list). 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 Li and Chen in view of Chen(2) in order to establish how the merge list is to be constructed and/or updated.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20200404253 A1, hereinafter Chen) in view of Chen et al. (US 20230156181 A1, hereinafter Chen(2)) and Chiu et al. (US 20250286991 A1, hereinafter Chiu).
Concerning claim 13, Chen in view of Chen(2) teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein a MERGE MV in the motion pair is determined based on a rule, and wherein the rule is based on a predefined position of a MERGE MV candidate in a MERGE MV list, or wherein the rule is based on a TM cost.
Chiu et al. (hereinafter Chiu), in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein a MERGE MV in the motion pair is determined based on a rule, and wherein the rule is based on a predefined position of a MERGE MV candidate in a MERGE MV list, or wherein the rule is based on a TM cost (¶0056: Template Matching (TM) costs are used in determining Merge MVs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the teachings of Chiu to the Chen in view of Chen(2) invention in order to reduce complexity associated with MMVD (Chiu, ¶0002).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20200404253 A1, hereinafter Chen) in view of Chen et al. (US 20230156181 A1, hereinafter Chen(2)) and Zhang et al. (US 20200288168 A1, hereinafter Zhang(2)).
Concerning claim 14, Chen in view of Chen(2) teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein at least one local illumination compensation (LIC) model parameter of a LIC model for the video unit is derived based on a non-linear model, wherein the video unit coded is a LIC coded block, and wherein the LIC model is updated by adjusting the at least one LIC model parameter.
Zhang et al. (hereinafter Zhang 2), in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein at least one local illumination compensation (LIC) model parameter of a LIC model for the video unit is derived based on a non-linear model, wherein the video unit coded is a LIC coded block, and wherein the LIC model is updated by adjusting the at least one LIC model parameter (¶¶0104-106: equations (1) and (4)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the teachings of Zhang to the Chen in view of Chen(2) invention in order to address the issue of local illumination changes (Zhang, ¶0104).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9 and 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.
Conclusion
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