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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I and Sub-species I corresponding to claims 1-23 in the reply filed on 4/23/26 is acknowledged.
No claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 4/23/26. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims are related to each other. This is not found persuasive however the restriction is withdrawn due to the references covers the restricted claims which makes it not a burden for the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/27/25 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/27/25. These drawings are acceptable.
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 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)(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) 1-10, 13-14 and 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2022/0210438).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a video processing method (see 100 in fig. 1; see fig. 15), comprising: determining, during a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a set of motion candidates for the current video block (see 402 in fig. 15); determining a starting point for further block level refinement based on a motion candidate of the set of motion candidates (see “Initital MV” in fig. 5; see 408 in fig. 15) which leads to a template matching cost rule (e.g. see ¶ [0103]); determining a refined motion candidate by performing a local search around the motion candidate based on the template matching cost rule (e.g. see 170 in fig. 8); and performing the conversion based on the refined motion candidate (see 418 in fig. 15).
Regarding claim 2, Chen further discloses wherein the template matching cost rule specifies that the refined motion candidate is associated with a minimum template matching cost (e.g. see ¶ [0106]).
Regarding claim 3, Chen further discloses wherein the set of motion candidates includes an original motion candidate (see 170 in fig. 8), and a template matching cost of the original motion candidate is decreased by a factor of the template matching cost (see 414 in fig. 15).
Regarding claim 4, Chen further discloses wherein the current video block is coded with a motion vector predication mode (see 400 in fig. 15), and wherein determining the refined motion candidate comprises: selecting, from among a set of refined motion candidates, one of the set of refined motion candidates associated with a minimum template matching cost as the refined motion candidate (see 412 in fig. 15; e.g. see ¶ [0103]).
Regarding claim 5, Chen further discloses wherein in response to the current video block being coded with the motion vector predication mode, one or more motion vectors for the current video block are determined based on one or more motion vector prediction candidates and at least one motion vector difference (see MVD in fig. 7), and wherein the at least one motion vector difference is used to refine the one or more motion vectors (see fig. 8).
Regarding claim 6, Chen further discloses wherein the current video block is coded with a merge mode (e.g. see ¶ [0101]), and wherein determining the refined motion candidate by performing the local search around the motion candidate based on the template matching cost rule comprises: in response to the motion candidate comprising first motion information with respect to a first reference picture list (see “refPic in List L0” in fig. 9), refining the first motion information by performing, between a current picture comprising the current video block and a first reference picture in the first reference picture list, a first local search based on template matching around the first motion information resulting in refined first motion information (see 178 in fig. 9; see 170-176 in fig. 8), the refined first motion information being associated with a minimum template matching cost during the first local search (e.g. see ¶ [0109]); in response to the motion candidate comprising second motion information with respect to a second reference picture list (see “refPic in List L1” in fig. 9), refining the second motion information by performing, between the current picture and a second reference picture in a second reference list, a second local search based on template matching around the second motion information resulting in refined second motion information (see 180 in fig. 9; see 170-176 in fig. 8), the refined second motion information being associated with a minimum template matching cost during the second local search (e.g. see ¶ [0109]); and determining the refined motion candidate including the refined first motion information and/or the refined second motion information (see 408 in fig. 15).
Regarding claim 7, Chen further discloses wherein the current video block is coded with a merge mode (e.g. see ¶ [0033]), and wherein determining the refined motion candidate comprises: selecting, from among a set of refined motion candidates, one of the set of refined motion candidates associated with a minimum rate distortion optimization cost as the refined motion candidate (e.g. see ¶ [0186]).
Regarding claim 8, Chen further discloses wherein the current video block is coded with a merge mode (e.g. see ¶ [0033]), and wherein determining the refined motion candidate comprises: selecting, from among a set of refined motion candidates, one of the set of refined motion candidates associated with a minimum template matching cost as the refined motion candidate (e.g. see ¶ [0140]).
Regarding claim 9, Chen further discloses wherein each of the set of refined motion candidates is associated with a first template matching cost related to a first reference picture list and/or a second template matching cost related to a second reference picture list (see fig. 9), and wherein: in response to uni-prediction based on the first reference picture list being utilized for a first refined motion candidate in the set of refined motion candidates, the first template matching cost of the first refined motion candidate is used in selecting the refined motion candidate (see “L0 reference” in fig. 10); and in response to uni-prediction based on the second reference picture list being utilized for a second refined motion candidate in the set of refined motion candidates, the second template matching cost of the second refined motion candidate is used in selecting the refined motion candidate (see “L1 reference” in fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Chen further discloses wherein in response to bi-prediction being utilized for a third refined motion candidate in the set of refined motion candidates, a weighted average of the first and second template matching costs of the third refined motion candidate is used in selecting the refined motion candidate (e.g. see ¶ [0189]).
Regarding claim 13, Chen further discloses wherein performing the local search comprises: determining a plurality of motion candidates around the motion candidate (see 174 in fig. 8); determining, based on a template of the current video block and respective motion information indicated by the plurality of motion candidates (see “Initial MV” in fig. 5), a plurality of reference templates to be matched with the template (see 152 in fig. 5); determining a template matching cost between the template and each reference template in the plurality of reference templates (e.g. see ¶ [0103]); and selecting, for the motion candidate, the refined motion candidate associated with a minimum template matching cost from among the plurality of motion candidates (e.g. see ¶ [0103], [0106]).
Regarding claim 14, Chen further discloses wherein a shape of the template is determined based on at least one of the following: block dimensions of the current video block; a coding mode of the current video block; and neighboring information about the current video block (see 148 and 152 in fig. 5; e.g. see ¶ [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, Chen further discloses wherein the conversion comprises encoding the current video block into the bitstream (see 220 in fig. 11).
Regarding claim 21, Chen further discloses wherein the conversion comprises decoding the current video block from the bitstream (see 302 in fig. 12).
Regarding claim 22 , the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 23, a bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Chen which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0011]).
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 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 of this title, 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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 11, Chen further discloses wherein in response to bi-prediction being utilized (see 400 in fig. 15) for a third refined motion candidate in the set of refined motion candidates (see 412-414 in fig. 15, although not clearly shown, it is obvious that iteratively repeating the process indicates a second, third, or more refined motion candidate), a bi-prediction template matching cost of the third refined motion candidate is used in selecting the refined motion candidate (see 408 in fig. 15), and wherein the method further comprises: determining the bi-prediction template matching cost for the third refined motion candidate based on a template of the current video block and a combined reference template generated from a first reference template in the first reference picture list and a second reference template in the second reference picture list (see 408 in fig. 15), the first and second reference templates being determined based on the third refined motion candidate (e.g. see ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Chen further discloses wherein the combined reference template is a weighted average of the first reference template and the second reference template (e.g. see ¶ [0103]).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Sim et al. (US 2017/0134726).
Regarding claims 15-17, Chen does not disclose wherein a shape of the template is determined based on a shape of the current video block, wherein a shape of the template is communicated between a video encoder and a video decoder, wherein a coding mode of the current video block is signaled at one of sequence level, picture level, slice level, sub-picture level, coding tree unit (CTU) level or CU level.
However, Sim discloses a video processing wherein a shape of the template is determined based on a shape of the current video block (e.g. see 710 in fig. 7), wherein a shape of the template is communicated between a video encoder and a video decoder (e.g. see ¶ [0084]), wherein a coding mode of the current video block is signaled at one of sequence level, picture level, slice level, sub-picture level, coding tree unit (CTU) level or CU level (see 260 in fig. 2B).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Sim teachings of signaling into Chen decoding for the benefit of communicating template and coding mode information for the decoder to properly process blocks that went through template matching.
Regarding claim 18, the refences further discloses wherein: the coding mode of the current video block is a first merge mode, and the first merge mode is signaled using a CU-level flag as one of merge modes, wherein the merge modes comprise the first merge mode and at least one other merge mode (e.g. see Chen ¶ [0005], [0033]).
Regarding claim 19, the refences further discloses wherein the at least one other merge mode comprises at least one of the following: a common merge mode (e.g. see ¶ [0033]), a merge mode with motion vector differences, a combined inter and intra prediction mode, a geometric partitioning mode and a subblock merge mode.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Lee et al. (US 2021/0152843 A1), discloses mode based video coding/decoding.
2. Huang et al. (US 2021/0092434 A1), discloses adaptive affine motion vector derivation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights