DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 06/11/2026 and is being filed as a second Non-Final for the reasons presented below.
In the filed response, Claims 1, 11, 18, and 19 have been amended, with Claims 1, 18, and 19 being independent claims. Further, Claims 14 and 20 have been canceled and new Claim 21 has been added.
Accordingly, Claims 1-13, 15-19 and 21 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s remarks, see pgs. 8-9, filed 06/11/2026, with respect to the prior art rejection(s) of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, based on the incorporated allowable subject matter of now canceled Claim 14. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However based on updated searches, it appears the work of Xie US 2025/01119557 A1 and Park et al. US 2021/0037238 A1, hereinafter referred to as Xie and Park, respectively, reasonably addresses the amended features given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). As such, a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be made. For these reasons, this office action is submitted as a Non-Final. Please refer to examiner’s responses below for details.
2. Regarding Xie and Park, the examiner respectfully submits after careful consideration, that both prior art either alone or in combination reasonably teach and/or suggest “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: determining a cost corresponding to a candidate LIC type based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample; and determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the cost, and wherein if the candidate LIC type is the same as a LIC type in a motion candidate, the cost of the candidate LIC type is adjusted, and/or wherein the cost of the candidate LIC type is adjusted based on at least a neighboring video unit of the video unit.” as recited in amended claims 1, 18, and 19. For e.g., given the BRI of “LIC type”, Xie teaches applying different “LIC modes” for determining the optimal “LIC mode” based on the availability of neighboring reconstructed samples to the current block (see for e.g. 0084 and 0140-0143). Xie however does not appear to address any type of adjustment to the determined costs. As such, Park is brought in to teach this feature. For e.g. in 0229, Park in the context of merge candidates, shows the derived cost can be controlled by a weighting factor for the LIC based on predetermined conditions. Here controlling the cost with a weighting factor is construed to mean “adjusting the cost”, given its BRI. Park also describes throughout the disclosure other examples of adjusting the cost. See for e.g. 0150-0158 with respect to normalizing the cost as well as downscaling and upscaling the cost. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on in the office action below, the examiner respectfully submits Xie and Park either alone or in combination reasonably teach and/or suggest the disclosed features of the instant claims given their BRI. The work of Chen is also found to be relevant to the claims and is relied on to address the features of Claims 10-13 below.
3. Applicant’s remarks/amendments related to the non-statutory double patenting rejection are acknowledged. As such, the double patenting rejection is withdrawn since the claims of co-pending Application No. 19/177,458 do not recite the newly added features in Claims 1, 18, and 19 as amended.
4. Applicant’s remarks/amendments related to the rejections of Claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged. Since these claims were both canceled, the corresponding 112 rejections are withdrawn. However, the rejection of Claims 11-13 remain rejected, for the same reason previously presented on pgs. 5-6 of the last Office Action. Please see below for details.
5. Applicant’s remarks/amendments related to the objection of Claim 14 are acknowledged. As such, the objection is withdrawn.
6. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
7. Accordingly, Claims 1-13, 15-19 and 21 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the clam recites “wherein the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample of the video unit comprise at least one of the followings:…” (emphasis added). It appears “followings” should read “following”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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 11-13 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 11, claim 11 recites “wherein determining a LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: during reordering of a motion list associated with the video unit, determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample, and/or wherein determining a LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: before a motion refinement of the video unit, determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample, and/or wherein determining a LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample and a syntax element” (emphasis added). It is not entirely clear whether the instances of determining “a LIC type” refers to another LIC type or is the same LIC type as the one recited in claim 1. For these reasons, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Regarding claims 12-13, claims 12-13 depend on claim 11, and therefore include all of its features. As such, claims 12-13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
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.
Claims 1-9, 17-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie US 2025/01119557 A1 (with reference to priority document WO 2023/245349 A1 – please see attached English translation), in view of Park et al. US 2021/0037238 A1, hereinafter referred to as Xie and Park, respectively. Please note, the priority document contains corresponding subject matter as presented in Xie’s published application (see for e.g. the costs associated with each LIC mode in 0187-0190).
Regarding claim 1, given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Xie teaches and/or suggests “A method of video processing, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video [See the encoder and decoder in figs. 1A-1C for converting video data], a Local illumination compensation (LIC) type of the video unit based on at least one neighboring reconstructed sample of the video unit [See for e.g. 0084 with respect to determining an LIC mode (here construed as a ‘LIC type’ given its BRI) to be applied during encoding of a current block according to the availability of the neighboring reconstructed samples of the current block]; and performing the conversion based on the determined LIC type [Note the encoder and decoder above], wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises [Same as above]: determining a cost corresponding to a candidate LIC type based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample; and determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the cost [See for example 0140-0143 which describe calculating costs associated with different LIC modes, where an optimal mode (i.e. the mode with the minimum RD cost) can be determined according to the availability of the neighboring reconstructed samples of the current block], and wherein if the candidate LIC type is the same as a LIC type in a motion candidate [See for e.g. 0103. In the context of a MVP list in the merge mode, an LIC-related flag (e.g. LIC usage flag) of the current block inherits those of a neighboring block. If inherited, this indicates the LIC type will be the same] where, the cost of the candidate LIC type is adjusted, and/or wherein the cost of the candidate LIC type is adjusted based on at least a neighboring video unit of the video unit.” [Xie however does not appear to perform cost adjustments. Please refer to Park below for support] Although Xie’s teachings are deemed relevant in light of the disclosed features given their BRI, Xie does not appear to describe adjusting the cost as claimed. As such, the work of Park from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “where, the cost of the candidate LIC type is adjusted, and/or wherein the cost of the candidate LIC type is adjusted based on at least a neighboring video unit of the video unit.” [Given the “or” condition above, please see for e.g. 0229 of Park, which in the context of merge candidates, shows the derived cost as described therein, can be controlled by a weighting factor for the LIC based on predetermined conditions. Here controlling the cost with a weighting factor is construed to mean “adjusting the cost”, given its BRI] Recognizing Park’s teachings regarding LIC and cost adjustments, Park’s work is deemed relevant. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the LIC method of Xie to add the teachings of Park as above for more efficiently modifying a merge candidate list for a current block by taking characteristics of the current block into consideration through which it is possible to improve prediction accuracy and prediction efficiency, thus improving the overall coding efficiency (e.g. 0013).
Regarding claim 2, Xie and Park teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample of the video unit comprise at least one of the followings: a first reconstrued sample adjacent to the video unit, or a first reconstrued sample non-adjacent to the video unit.” [See for e.g. 0056 and 0084 of Xie where the LIC mode can be applied based on the availability of the top and left neighboring reconstructed samples of the current block, i.e. are adjacent to said block.]
Regarding claim 3, Xie and Park teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “wherein determining a LIC type of the video unit based on at least one neighboring reconstructed sample of the video unit comprises: determining a template comprising the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample [0056 shows the neighboring reconstructed samples can be referred to as a ‘template’ sample. As such, a template would have had to be determined. Also note the templates in Park (e.g. figs. 7 and 8)]; and determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the template.” [See 0084 of Xie, where an LIC mode can be determined based on the availability of the top and left neighboring reconstructed samples of the current block, where said neighboring reconstructed samples can be referred to as template samples (e.g. 0056)]
Regarding claim 4, Xie and Park teach all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the template comprises: determining a first prediction of the template by applying a first LIC type to the template; determining a second prediction of the template by applying a second LIC type to the template; and determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the first prediction and the second prediction.” [Please refer to 0140-0143 of Xie, where at least two rounds of encoding of a current CU are performed using different LIC modes (e.g. LIC_T and LIC_L). Corresponding costs are determined for each mode from which the mode having the minimum RD cost (costLic) is selected]
Regarding claim 5, Xie and Park teach all the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the first prediction and the second prediction comprises: determining the LIC type of the video unit based on at least one of: a first cost between a reconstruction of the template and the first prediction; and a second cost between the reconstruction of the template and the second prediction.” [See citations presented in claim 4 regarding the calculations of costs associated with each LIC mode (e.g. cost1…cost3)]
Regarding claim 6, Xie and Park teach all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on at least one of a first cost between a reconstruction of the template and the first prediction and a second cost between the reconstruction of the template and the second prediction comprises [See citations presented in claim 4 regarding the costs for each LIC mode when determining the minimum RD cost value costLic]: determining whether to apply the first LIC type or the second LIC type to the video unit based one at least one of the first cost and the second cost. [The minimum RD cost value costLic determines which of the tested LIC modes gets selected]
Regarding claim 7, Xie and Park teach all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “wherein determining whether to apply the first LIC type or the second LIC type to the video unit based one at least one of the first cost and the second cost comprises: if the first cost is less than the second cost, determining that the first LIC type is applied to the video unit; or if the second cost is less than the first cost, determining that the second LIC type is applied to the video unit.” [Please refer to 0140-0143 of Xie, where comparing at least two costs (e.g. cost1, cost2, and cost3) determines which LIC mode gets selected based on the one having the minimum RD cost value costLic]
Regarding claim 8, Xie and Park teach all the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the first LIC type indicates enabling LIC for the video unit; and/or wherein the second LIC type indicates disabling LIC for the video unit.” [Recognizing the “or” condition above, please see for e.g. 0145 with respect to enabling LIC for the current CU]
Regarding claim 9, Xie and Park teach all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the template comprises: determining multiple LIC types of the video unit based on the template.” [0084 shows multiple LIC modes can be applied based on the top and left neighboring reconstructed samples of the current block, which according to 0056 can be template samples]
Regarding claim 17, Xie and Park teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream.” [Please refer to figs. 1A-1C with respect to Xie’s video encoding and decoding apparatuses]
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the hardware and software, please see for e.g. ¶0206-¶0218 of Xie for support.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the hardware and software, please see for e.g. ¶0206-¶0218 of Xie for support.
Regarding claim 21, Xie and Park teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising: storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.” [Please refer to ¶0218 of Xie for support]
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie, in view of Park, in further view of Chen US 2025/0274593 A1 (with reference to Provisional application No. 63/331,148), hereinafter referred to as Chen. Please note the Provisional application provides priority support for the following claims.
Regarding claim 10, Xie and Park teach all the limitations of claim 9, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie further teaches and/or suggests “wherein multiple LIC types indicate multiple different LIC models, and/or wherein multiple LIC types indicate different parameters of a LIC model, and/or wherein multiple LIC types indicate multiple different LIC models with at least one adjustment parameter for at least one parameter of LIC. [Recognizing the “or” condition above, 0140-0143 describe multiple LIC modes having different model parameters]. Although Xie is deemed relevant given the BRI of the above limitations (where Park does not appear to address these), the work of Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to further teach/suggest the foregoing. [Given the adjusted LIC models illustrated in fig. 4, and the disclosed multi-model LIC method in ¶0064-¶0066, Chen’s teachings are deemed relevant in view of having multiple different LIC models] Recognizing multiple LIC types may refer to different LIC models with adjustment parameters (see for e.g. pgs. 49-50 of filed specification), Chen’s method for performing illumination compensation (e.g. abstract) is deemed relevant. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work of both Xie and Park to add the teachings of Chen as above for enabling the number of linear models to be increased in order to further improve the coding efficiency of the local illumination compensation (LIC). See e.g. ¶0064.
Regarding claim 11, Xie and Park teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Xie and Park do not appear to address the features of claim 11, the work of Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support the following limitations in light of the ‘or’ condition in the phrase “and/or”, i.e. wherein determining a LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: during reordering of a motion list associated with the video unit, determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample, and/or wherein determining a LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: before a motion refinement of the video unit, determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample, and/or wherein determining a LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample and a syntax element, and/or wherein determining a LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: determining a cost corresponding to a target LIC type based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample [See ¶0059 of Chen with respect to determining a cost for each possible LIC slope adjustment parameter (fig. 4), where each adjustment corresponds to an adjusted LIC model (i.e. a target LIC type)] ; and determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the cost. [The slope adjustment parameter that yields the minimum cost results in a determined LIC model having the desired parameters (¶0059)] The motivation for combining Xie, Park, and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 10, above.
Regarding claim 12, Xie, Park, and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie however does not address the features of claim 12. Park, on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the motion refinement comprises DMVR, multi-pass DMVR and/or template matching.” [Park teaches DMVR (e.g. fig. 18). Park further teaches the template matching method (e.g. fig. 4)] The motivation for combining Xie and Park has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 13, Xie, Park, and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie however does not address the features of claim 13. Park, on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “further comprising: adjusting the cost based on coding information for determining the LIC type of the video unit. [See 0229 of Park with respect to controlling the cost derived for e.g. by template matching methods described therein, for the LIC based on predetermined conditions as well as other coding information (e.g. LIC flag set to true) based on said conditions] The motivation for combining Xie and Park has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie, in view of Park, in further view of Kim et al. US 2024/0406410 A1 (with reference to Priority Data KR 10-2021-0117969), hereinafter referred to as Kim. Please note, the figures found in the priority data correspond to figures 1-20 of the U.S. Publication.
Regarding claim 15, Xie and Park teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie and Park however do not appear to address the features of clam 15. On the other hand, the work of Kim from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein whether the video unit is coded with multiple partitioning parts or the video unit is coded with position-dependent weighting values is determined, and in accordance with a determination that the video unit is coded with the multiple partitioning parts or the video unit is coded with the position-dependent weighting values, LIC is applied to at least one part of the video unit.” [With respect to the disclosed multiple partitioning parts (GPM mode) shown in fig. 16 (i.e. partition 1 and 2), an LIC method may be applied (e.g. ¶0171)] Given Kim’s teachings for motion vector derivation in video coding (e.g. abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work of Xie and Park to add the teachings of Kim as above in order to provide a method for efficiently processing a video signal. See e.g. ¶0027.
Regarding claim 16, Xie and Park teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Xie and Park however do not appear to address the features of clam 16. On the other hand, the work of Kim from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein determining that the video unit is coded with the multiple partitioning parts or the video unit is coded with the position-dependent weighting values [See claim 15 with respect to the partitions shown in for e.g. fig. 16. This is also depicted in fig. 15] comprises: in accordance with a determination that the video unit is coded with GPM [With respect to figs. 15-16, GPM mode is applied], determining that the video unit is coded with the multiple partitioning parts or the video unit is coded with the position-dependent weighting values [Same as above with respect to GPM mode], and/or wherein the video unit is coded with the multiple partitioning parts [GPM mode is applied], and wherein applying the LIC to the at least one part of the video unit [Fig. 16 discloses applying the LIC method], comprises: applying the LIC to at least one target part among the multiple partitioning parts.” [As shown, LIC is applied to each partition of the two partitions depicted] The motivation for combining Xie, Park, and Kim has been discussed in connection with claim 15, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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 A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights