DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2025 and 08/01/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/03/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-3, 8-12, 15-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidani et al. “Non-EE2: Chained motion vector prediction”, hereafter Kidani, in view of Zhao et al. US 2024/0291967 A1, hereafter Zhao.
Regarding claim 1, Kidani discloses a method of coding video data (chained motion vector prediction) [title], the method comprising:
determining to code a current block of the video data using a merge mode (merge candidate list construction; chained MV prediction (CMVP) into inter merge candidate list construction) [abstract; section 2];
determining a first chained motion vector prediction (CMVP) candidate based on a first source candidate (as shown in Figure 1, CMVP candidate scan be derived as the sum of recursively traced MVs and BVs based on the pre-derived MVs for the inter merge candidate list) [section 2];
inserting the first CMVP candidate into a bilateral matching merge list (each list (i.e., L0 and L1)) [section 2];
determining a second CMVP candidate based on a second source candidate (as shown in Figure 1, CMVP candidate scan be derived as the sum of recursively traced MVs and BVs based on the pre-derived MVs for the inter merge candidate list) [section 2];
inserting the second CMVP candidate into a second list (each list (i.e., L0 and L1)) [section 2]; and
decoding the current block using at least one of the bilateral matching merge list or the second list (decoder runtime) [section 4].
However, while Kidani discloses chained motion vector predictor candidates and process, Kidani fails to explicitly disclose determining to code a current block of the video data using a bilateral matching merge mode; determining that the first source candidate satisfies one or more bilateral matching conditions; inserting, based on the first source candidate satisfying the one or more bilateral matching conditions, the first CMVP candidate into a bilateral matching merge list; determining that the second source candidate does not satisfy the one or more bilateral matching conditions; inserting, based on the second source candidate not satisfying the one or more bilateral matching conditions, the second CMVP candidate into a second list.
Zhao, in an analogous environment, discloses determining to code a current block of the video data using a bilateral matching merge mode (motion candidate list may comprise one of the following: a merge candidate list…a bilateral matching merge candidate list) [0304];
determining that the first source candidate satisfies one or more bilateral matching conditions (determine a candidate list from the plurality of candidates by using a plurality of thresholds 1104) [FIG. 11];
inserting, based on the first source candidate satisfying the one or more bilateral matching conditions, the first CMVP candidate into a bilateral matching merge list (determine a candidate list from the plurality of candidates by using a plurality of thresholds 1104) [FIG. 11];
determining that the second source candidate does not satisfy the one or more bilateral matching conditions (determine a candidate list from the plurality of candidates by using a plurality of thresholds 1104) [FIG. 11];
inserting, based on the second source candidate not satisfying the one or more bilateral matching conditions, the second CMVP candidate into a second list (determine a candidate list from the plurality of candidates by using a plurality of thresholds 1104) [FIG. 11].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bilateral matching merge mode candidate list thresholds, as disclosed by Zhao, with the invention disclosed by Kidani, the motivation being improving coding efficiency [0006].
Regarding claim 2, Kidani and Zhao address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Zhao further discloses determining that at least one candidate from an adjacent position, a non-adjacent position, a temporal position, or a history buffer (A0, A1, C1) [FIG. 4], does not satisfy the one or more bilateral matching conditions (determine a candidate list from the plurality of candidates by using a plurality of thresholds 1104) [FIG. 11]; and
inserting, based on the at least one candidate from the adjacent position, the non- adjacent position, the temporal position, or the history buffer (A0, A1, C1) [FIG. 4], not satisfying the one or more bilateral matching conditions, the at least one candidate into the second list (determine a candidate list from the plurality of candidates by using a plurality of thresholds 1104) [FIG. 11].
Regarding claim 3, Kidani and Zhao address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kidani further discloses the second CMVP candidate is inserted into the second list after the bilateral matching merge list is derived (the chained MV prediction candidates are inserted after the MPVP prediction candidates; the MV set is sequentially inserted into inter merge candidate list) [abstract; section 2].
Regarding claim 8, Kidani and Zhao address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kidani further discloses coding comprises decoding (decoder runtime) [section 4].
Regarding claim 9, Kidani and Zhao address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Kidani further discloses coding comprises encoding (coding performance) [section 1].
Claims 10-12 are drawn to a device adapted to implement the method of claims 1-3, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite a decoder comprising one or more memories and one or more processors, which Zhao also teaches (video decoder 124; processing unit 1510, memory 1520) [FIG. 1; FIG. 15].
Regarding claim 15, Kidani and Zhao address all of the features with respect to claim 10 as outlined above.
Zhao further discloses a display configured to display decoded video data (display device 122) [FIG. 1].
Claims 16 -18 are drawn to a device adapted to implement the method of claims 1-3, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite a encoder comprising one or more memories and one or more processors, which Zhao also teaches (video decoder 114; processing unit 1510, memory 1520) [FIG. 1; FIG. 15].
Regarding claim 20, Kidani and Zhao address all of the features with respect to claim 16 as outlined above.
Zhao further discloses a camera configured to capture the video data (video camera) [0451.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 13, 14, and 19 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al. US 2024/0179342 A1 discloses adaptive bilateral matching
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights