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 Claims
2. This is a final action on the merits in response to the reply received 7/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 11-14, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130022119 A1-Chien et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chien”), in view of US 20150195562 A1-Li et al (hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in further view of US 20130272410 A1-Seregin et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Seregin”).
Regarding claim 1, Chien discloses a method (Fig. 14-18), comprising:
encoding a video signal using a candidate list ([0036], encoding using candidate list) by:
performing an at least one operation comprising an operation on at least one of a spatial motion vector predictor candidate or a temporal motion vector predictor candidate to generate a rounded motion vector predictor candidate as a modified candidate ([0086])
determining whether said modified candidate is present in a candidate list by comparing ([0140-141])
responsive to determining that said motion vector predictor candidate is not present in the candidate list, adding said motion vector predictor candidate to the candidate list. ([0138]; [0141], if motion vector does not refer to the same reference picture (interpreted as not being available), the motion vector may be scaled (modified) before being added to the candidate list; [0143] discloses adding motion vectors to the candidate list. The examiner would like to note several things with this particular claim. This limitation recites a conditional statement. The limitation appears to rather recite operations which are performed when the specific cases are met and does not specify any actions which are taken when the specific cases are not met or any specific determination to be performed. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the adding” step or act need not be performed if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Natl Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.”); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court’s interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)): Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest scenario, the step dependent on the “if’ conditional would not be invoked, and so it is unnecessary to find this limitation in the prior art in order to render the claim obvious. In other words, one would infringe claim 1 by performing all steps other than the step of “if said at least one modified candidate is not present in the candidate list.” “That which infringes if later anticipates if earlier.” Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889))).
Chien fails to disclose performing a rounding operation on at least one of a spatial motion vector predictor candidate or a temporal motion vector predictor candidate to generate a rounded motion vector predictor candidate
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses performing a rounding operation on at least one of a spatial motion vector predictor candidate or a temporal motion vector predictor candidate to generate a rounded motion vector predictor candidate ([0131], wherein motion vector candidates from spatial and temporal blocks may be rounded)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chien to disclose performing a rounding operation on at least one of a spatial motion vector predictor candidate or a temporal motion vector predictor candidate to generate a rounded motion vector predictor candidate as taught by Li, to improve coding efficiency ([0037], Li).
Chien and Li fail to disclose determining whether said modified candidate is present in a candidate list by comparing said modified candidate to already selected candidates in the list
However, in the same field of endeavor, Seregin discloses determining whether said modified candidate is present in a candidate list by comparing said modified candidate to already selected candidates in the list, responsive to determining that said modified candidate is not present in the candidate list, adding said modified candidate to the candidate list. ([0078], wherein The MVs generated by rounding components of the MV in different directions may replace one or more of the artificial MV candidates in the MV candidate list. As a result, the video coder may skip the process of adding the artificial MV candidates to the MV candidate list. That is, when MV rounding is applied, adding artificial MV candidates can be skipped during merge MV candidate list construction)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chien and Li to disclose determining whether said modified candidate is present in a candidate list by comparing said modified candidate to already selected candidates in the list as taught by Seregin, to improve coding efficiency ([0067, Seregin).
Regarding claim 2, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 2, wherein decoder(Chien Fig. 1, element 30. The decoder performs the opposite of the encoder).
Regarding claim 3, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 3, wherein memory (Chien, [0048], memory), processor ([0008])
Regarding claim 4, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 4, wherein memory (Chien, [0048], memory), processor ([0008]).
Regarding claim 5, Chien disclose the method of Claims 1, wherein a merge predictor comprising a motion vector, a reference frame index, a reference frame list and an IC flag, are the candidates to be added to said candidate list if not previously present in said candidate list (Chien, ([0163], wherein clipping to modify the existing motion information (motion vector, reference frame index, reference picture list; [0172], clipping motion vectors; [0173], clipping motion vectors; [0174], clipping motion vectors; ([0138]; [0141], if motion vector does not refer to the same reference picture (interpreted as not being available), the motion vector may be scaled (modified) before being added to the candidate list; [0143] discloses adding motion vectors to the candidate list; The examiner would like to note several things with this particular claim. This limitation recites a conditional statement. The limitation appears to rather recite operations which are performed when the specific cases are met and does not specify any actions which are taken when the specific cases are not met or any specific determination to be performed. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the adding” step or act need not be performed if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Natl Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603, 607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (“It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed.”); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court’s interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)): Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the broadest scenario, the step dependent on the “if’ conditional would not be invoked, and so it is unnecessary to find this limitation in the prior art in order to render the claim obvious. In other words, one would infringe claim 1 by performing all steps other than the step of “if not previously presented.” “That which infringes if later anticipates if earlier.” Polaroid Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 789 F.2d 1556, 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889)))).
Regarding claim 9, Chien disclose the method of Claims 1, wherein an intra predictor candidate is selected from a test set of candidates and wherein redundant directional predictions in the test set of candidates are removed (Chien, ([0163], [0172]-[0174]; ([0138]; [0141], [0143])
Regarding claim 11, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 11, for playback (Chien, [0050])
Regarding claim 12, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 12, for playback (Chien, [0050])
Regarding claim 13, Chien discloses the method of claim 2, wherein said at least one operation comprises clipping, rounding, and selecting a different candidate ([0172-0174])
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 13 and are applicable for claim 14
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 17
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 9 and are applicable for claim 19
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130022119 A1-Chien et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chien”), in view of US 20150195562 A1-Li et al (hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in further view of US 20130272410 A1-Seregin et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Seregin”), in view of Patent 10491918 B2-Park et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding claim 8, Chien discloses the method or the apparatus of Claim 7 (see claim 7),
Chien and Li fail to disclose wherein a second motion vector is obtained in an area not considered as a candidate for a first motion vector.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Park discloses wherein a second motion vector is obtained in an area not considered as a candidate for a first motion vector (column 20, lines 10-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chien and Li to disclose wherein a second motion vector is obtained in an area not considered as a candidate for a first motion vector as taught by Park, to improve performance (column 4, lines 40-50)
Claim 10 and 18, 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130022119 A1-Chien et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chien”), in view of US 20150195562 A1-Li et al (hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in further view of US 20130272410 A1-Seregin et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Seregin”), in further view of US 20170094305 A1-Li et al (hereinafter referred to “Li2”).
Regarding claim 10, Chien discloses the method of claim 1
Chien and Li fail to disclose wherein candidates in a frame rate up conversion process are found, comprising a motion vector, a reference frame index, and a reference frame list.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li2 discloses wherein candidates in a frame rate up conversion process are found, comprising a motion vector, a reference frame index, and a reference frame list ([0014]; [0026-0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chien and Li to disclose wherein candidates in a frame rate up conversion process are found, comprising a motion vector, a reference frame index, and a reference frame list as taught by Li, to improve coding efficiency ([0034], Li).
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 10 and are applicable for claim 18
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 10 and are applicable for claim 20
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130022119 A1-Chien et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chien”), in view of in view of US 20150195562 A1-Li et al (hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in further view of US 20130272410 A1-Seregin et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Seregin”), in view of US 20150381986 A1-Chen et al (hereinafter referred to as” Chen”).
Regarding claim 15, Chien discloses the method of Claim 1,
Chien and Li fail to disclose wherein the atleast one operation comprises a first operation that is rounding and the atleast one operation comprises a second operation that is is clipping However, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the atleast one operation comprises a first operation that is rounding and the atleast one operation comprises a second operation that is is clipping
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chien, Seregin, and Li to disclose the atleast one operation comprises a first operation that is rounding and the atleast one operation comprises a second operation that is is clipping However, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the atleast one operation comprises a first operation that is rounding and the atleast one operation comprises a second operation that is clipping as taught by Chen, to improve coding efficiency ([0003], Chen).
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 3 and are applicable for claim 16.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights