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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
.Claims 1-20 are rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50).
The claims are directed to statutory categories of methods, apparata, articles of manufacture (under Step 1).
Upon analysis of the present claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (under Step 2A, prong one), the claims appear to recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea, directed to logical concepts, mathematical relationships, following rules or instructions, mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and allusions to empirical determinations without limitation to particular empirical equations or algorithms) of obtaining data according to rules and mathematical relationships defined in a VVC industry standard: “”
The claims include several categories of this abstract idea: information (a current block that is Intra block copy (IBC) coded, linear transformation vectors (LTVs), vector predictor (LTVP) and a linear transformation vector difference, a displacement vector, LTV index, list of LTV candidates), collecting information (obtaining); outputting information (claims do not output information), and/or analyzing information at a high degree of algorithmic generality (refining, comparing, determining, selecting, restricting). These categories have been identified as abstract ideas by the Federal Circuit as summarized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016):
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. 1354*1354 v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed.Appx. 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Upon consideration of the record (under Step 2A, prong two), Examiner did not find that the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception “in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” The additional elements, when considered individually or in a claim as a whole, “A method for video decoding, … obtaining, by a decoder … An apparatus for video decoding comprising: one or more processors; and a memory … A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream to be decoded …”, do not seem to reflect a substantive improvement in the functioning of a computer (simply applying the abstract idea using a general purpose computer or a computer readable storage medium), or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the standards of the present judicial guidance; (intention to apply the abstract idea to video decoding does not in fact limit the claim to perform video decoding); do not seem use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (a decoder is an intended function not a particular machine; a general purpose computer or storage medium is not a particular machine); do not seem to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (obtaining data according to logical rules and mathematical relationship is not a physical transformation or practical application).
This is further evidenced in that the additional elements: The claims do not output the determined data. The claims merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent obtain using a decoder) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (i.e. obtaining, determining, analyzing information for use with the judicial exception as in CyperSource and Mayo); do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. linked to a computer or other well-established activities in the art such as the field of video decoding).
Substantially similar subject matter has been found ineligible in In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (An abstract idea rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, for claiming a process of analyzing data by selecting the data to be analyzed and by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, (Fed Cir. May 17, 2016) (Method for recording, transmitting, organizing, and administering digital images is ineligible); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Using profiles in a digital image processing system is ineligible); Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information for collection by content or source, analyzing it, and displaying results of collection and analysis are not eligible either separately or in combination); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F. 3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Encoding and decoding of an image is an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information, and addition of a mathematical equation that simply changes the data into other forms of data cannot render it patent eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (organizing, displaying, and manipulating data encoded for human and machine readability is directed to an abstract concept).
Finally, the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination (under step 2B), do not seem to provide an Inventive Concept that is “significantly more” than the ineligible subject matter. The claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception, at a high level of generality (for video decoding).
The claims should be amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field.
Examiner suggests amending the claims to perform video decoding by transforming a video bitstream to a video signal ready for display.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
While Applicant is allowed to be his own lexicographer in describing claim structures, Examiner must reject the claim based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed elements and not based on the presence of Applicant’s exact phrasing. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 904.01(a).
Material or article worked upon by an apparatus does not limit an apparatus claim. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See, MPEP 2115.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230114696 to Li (“Li”) in view of US 20220046272 to Zhang (“Zhang”)
Regarding Claim 1: “A method for video decoding, comprising:
obtaining, by a decoder, a current block that is Intra block copy (IBC) coded (“an intra-block copy unit (which may be part of motion estimation unit 222 and/or motion compensation unit 224), an affine unit, a linear model (LM) unit, or the like. … mode. Video encoder 200 may use similar modes to encode motion vectors for affine motion compensation mode” Li, Paragraphs 137, 160.)
based on multi-model IBC, wherein the multi-model IBC adaptively switches among different models; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, (a) adaptively switching embodies selecting a model for prediction, and (b) the different models can be exemplifies as affine, AMVP, merge, a linear model, where such models can be based on inter prediction. See original dependent Claims 2 and 12. Prior art also provides such examples: “derive, for a current block of video data and using decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD), a list of intra modes … and predict, using a candidate selected [adaptively switched] from the constructed MPM list, the current block” Li, Paragraph 157. “As examples, mode selection unit 202 may include a palette unit, an intra-block copy unit (which may be part of motion estimation unit 222 and/or motion compensation unit 224), an affine unit, a linear model (LM) unit, or the like. … using advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) or merge mode. Video encoder 200 may use similar modes to encode motion vectors for affine motion compensation mode.” Li, Paragraphs 137, 114.)
Note that Li describes the above modes independently and not under an intra block copy umbrella “multi-model IBC.” However, this appears to be Applicant’s own lexicography to refer to these modes as IBC, and to the intra block copy mode in VVC as “traditional IBC.” See Specification, Paragraph 194. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, this choice of lexicography does not change the structure or function of the modes from those described in the prior art. According to the Specification, this change is straightforward.
Cumulatively, Zhang indicates that the combination of a translational motion model of the IBC and affine transformation models was already available in VVC. See Zhang, Paragraph 108 which corresponds to the motivation provided in Specification 142.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Li to use a traditional translation model of the IBC in combination with affine models of the newer VVC standard as taught in Zhang, “for motion compensation prediction (MCP). While in the real world, there are many kinds of motion, e.g. zoom in/out, rotation, perspective motions and the other irregular motions.” See Zhang, Paragraph 108.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
obtaining, by the decoder, one or more linear transformation vectors (LTVs) for the current block.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, VVC modes the LTVs can be motion or block vectors for affine motion compensation mode. See Specification Paragraphs 142-144, Li teaches the same feature in Paragraphs 137, 114. See similarly in Zhang, Paragraph 50. Materially, “an inter-coded coding unit (CU) can apply IBC if it chooses the current picture as its reference picture. The MV is renamed as block vector (BV) in this case,” which corresponds to the claimed LTVs. Zhang, Paragraph 196. See statement of motivation above.)
Regarding Claim 2: “The method of claim 1, wherein the multi-model IBC adaptively switches among the different models comprises at least one of following manners: … the multi-model IBC adaptively switches between explicit derivation of the one or more LTVs and implicit derivation of the one or more LTVs; … the multi-model IBC adaptively switches among a 2-parameter linear transformation model, a 4-parameter linear transformation model, and a 6-paramter linear transformation model; … the multi-model IBC adaptively switches among different mode decision flows; … the multi-model IBC adaptively switches among different precisions of the one or more LTVs; or … the multi-model IBC adaptively switches among different representations of the one or more LTVs.” (For example, Prior art teaches: “In VVC, a simplified affine transform motion compensation prediction is applied with 4-parameter affine model and 6-parameter affine model.” See Zhang, Paragraphs 108, 50, 55, and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the one or more LTVs for the current block comprises:
obtaining, by the decoder, the one or more LTVs signaled by an encoder, (For example, “The encoded video bitstream may include signaling information defined by video encoder 200, which is also used by video decoder … video encoder 200 may encode motion vectors using advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) or merge mode. Video encoder 200 may use similar modes to encode motion vectors for affine motion compensation mode. … prediction information syntax elements that were entropy decoded … a motion vector identifying a location of the reference block” Li, Paragraphs 94, 114, 169, and Figs. 1-2.)
wherein at least one of the one or more LTV s comprises a linear transformation vector predictor (LTVP) and a linear transformation vector difference (LTVD).” (For example, “Motion vectors may be explicitly coded as deltas [LTVD] relative to predictors [LTVP].” Zhang, Paragraph 50. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of claim 3, further comprising:
obtaining, by the decoder, an LTVP index that indicates a best LTVP selected from a list of LTVP candidates; and (“the video decoder may parse the intra prediction mode from the bitstream (e.g., construct a MPM [most probable mode] list and signal an index into the MPM list) and perform prediction accordingly.” Li, Paragraph 43. As noted in Claim 3, performing prediction can involve decoding motion vector predictors and deltas according to the manner the modes were encoded, as noted in Li, Paragraphs 94, 114, 169, and Figs. 1-2.)
obtaining, by the decoder, an LTVD value corresponding to the LTVP index; and obtaining, by the decoder, an LTV based on the LTVP index and the LTVD value, (“Motion vectors may be explicitly coded as deltas [LTVD] relative to predictors [LTVP].” Zhang, Paragraph 50. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
wherein the list of LTVP candidates comprises at least one of following lists: … a 2-parameter LTVP list comprising one or more inherited LTVPs from adjacent neighboring blocks, … one or more inherited LTVPs from non-adjacent neighbor blocks, one or more constructed LTVPs from adjacent neighboring blocks, and … one or more constructed LTVPs from non-adjacent neighboring blocks; … a 4-paramter LTVP list comprising one or more inherited LTVPs from adjacent neighboring blocks, … one or more inherited LTVPs from non-adjacent neighboring blocks, … one or more constructed LTVPs from adjacent neighboring blocks, and … one or more constructed LTVPs from non-adjacent neighboring blocks; … a 6-parameter LTVP list comprising one or more inherited LTVPs from adjacent neighboring blocks, … one or more inherited LTVPs from non-adjacent neighboring blocks, … one or more constructed LTVPs from adjacent neighboring blocks, and one or more constructed LTVPs from non-adjacent neighboring blocks; … or a zero padded LTVP list comprising one or more zero candidates.” (For example, “the video coder may derive [inherit] a list of intra modes using reconstructed samples of neighboring blocks … video coder may add prediction modes from neighboring blocks into MPM list.” Li, Paragraphs 50-51. Also, “Spatial scaling is considered when the POC is different between the reference picture of the neighboring PU and that of the current PU. … In VVC, a simplified affine transform motion compensation prediction is applied with 4-parameter affine model and 6-parameter affine model. As shown FIGS. l0A-l0B, … Padding as zero MV 4-parameter affine model” Zhang, Paragraphs 92, 108, 152, and statement of motivation in Clam 1.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining, by the decoder, a displacement vector from a current sample to a reference sample in the current block based on model parameters of the different models.” (For example “may generate the prediction block using one or more motion [displacement] vectors. … ay determine two or more motion vectors that represent non-translational motion, such as zoom in or out, rotation, perspective motion, or other irregular motion types. … may select an intra-prediction mode to generate the prediction block” Li, Paragraphs 111-113. The vectors in these modes can be encoded and decoded according to the selected modes. See Li, Paragraphs 94, 114, 169, and Figs. 1-2.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 4, further comprising: reordering, by the decoder, one or more LTVP candidates in the list of LTVP candidates based on a predetermined cost, wherein the predetermined cost comprises at least one of following costs: a bilateral matching cost or a template cost.” (For example, “bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs, i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD)” Zhang, Paragraph 161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The method of claim 4, further comprising: refining, by the decoder, one or more LTVP candidates in the list of LTVP candidates based on a gradient-based iterative motion estimation process.” (“In some examples, to perform DIMD for a current block, a video coder may perform gradient calculation to derive one or more possible modes” Li, Paragraph 33.)
Regarding Claim 8. “The method of claim 7, further comprising: obtaining, by the decoder, a refinement for each initial LTVP candidate by refining each initial LTVP candidate in the list of LTVP candidates; obtaining, by the decoder, the best LTVP from the list of LTVP candidates based on a Sum of Absolute Transformed Difference (SATD) cost, wherein the best LTVP has a minimum SATD cost; and … obtaining, by the decoder, the LTVD value based on the refinement corresponding to the best LTVP.” (For example, “the decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) … bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs [LTVPs], i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD)” Zhang, Paragraphs 160-161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 7, further comprising:
obtaining, by the decoder, the best LTVP with a minimum SATD cost from the list of LTVP candidates by performing the gradient-based iterative motion estimation process; and (“decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) is … a video coder may perform gradient calculation to derive one or more possible modes” indicating a single or iterative calculation. Li, Paragraph 33. Further, “the decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) … bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs [LTVPs], i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD) … The motion vector refinement process may iterate …” Zhang, Paragraphs 160-162. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
refining, by the decoder, each LTVP candidate in the list of LTVP candidates based on the gradient-based iterative motion estimation process.” (“decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) is … a video coder may perform gradient calculation to derive one or more possible modes” indicating a single or iterative calculation. Li, Paragraph 33. Further, “the decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) … bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs [LTVPs], i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD)” Zhang, Paragraphs 160-161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The method of claim 7, further comprising:
obtaining, by the decoder, a newly updated LTV after performing the gradient-based iterative motion estimation process; and (“decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) is … a video coder may perform gradient calculation to derive one or more possible modes” indicating a single or iterative calculation. Li, Paragraph 33. Further, “the decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) … bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs [LTVPs], i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD)” Zhang, Paragraphs 160-161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
comparing, by the decoder, the newly updated LTV and one or more best final LTV candidates of a parent block, (“the decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) … bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs [LTVPs], i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates.” Zhang, Paragraphs 160-161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
wherein a number of the one or more best final LTV candidates of the parent block is N, and N is a positive integer; … wherein the method further comprises: in response to determining that only one LTVP candidate of the parent block is iteratively refined, determining, by the decoder, that N equals to 1; (“the decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) … bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs [LTVPs], i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates,” where the best one is a case where N = 1. Zhang, Paragraphs 160-161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
or scaling up the one or more best final LTV candidates based on a ratio of sizes between the current block and the parent block.” (Cumulatively, prior art teaches this option as well: “In the derivation of spatial motion vector candidates, … Spatial scaling is considered when the POC is different between the reference picture of the neighboring PU and that of the current PU regardless” Zhang, Paragraphs 85-92, 28. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The method of claim 7, further comprising: applying, by the decoder, regularization to delta refinements at each iteration; and in response to determining that a refined LTV yields a higher SATD cost than the refined LTV from a previous iteration, reducing, by the decoder, the delta refinement.” (“decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) is … a video coder may perform gradient calculation to derive one or more possible modes” indicating a single or iterative calculation. Li, Paragraph 33. Further, “the decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) … bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs [LTVPs], i.e., to find the best MVD [delta refinement] among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD) … The motion vector refinement process may iterate” thus gradually reducing the candidate list to the best MVD. Zhang, Paragraphs 160-162. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 12: “The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the one or more LTVs for the current block comprises:
obtaining, by the decoder, the one or more LTVs for the current block based on one or more adjacent or non-adjacent neighboring blocks of the current block, … wherein the one or more adjacent or non-adjacent neighboring blocks comprise one or more adjacent or non-adjacent neighbor blocks with 4-parameter or 6-parameter models used for inherited candidate generation, and (For example, “the video coder may derive [inherit] a list of intra modes using reconstructed samples of neighboring [adjacent and non-adjacent] blocks … video coder may add prediction modes from neighboring blocks into MPM list.” Li, Paragraphs 50-51. Also, “Spatial scaling is considered when the POC is different between the reference picture of the neighboring PU and that of the current PU. … In VVC, a simplified affine transform motion compensation prediction is applied with 4-parameter affine model and 6-parameter affine model. As shown FIGS. l0A-l0B, … Padding as zero MV 4-parameter affine model” Zhang, Paragraphs 92, 108, 152, and statement of motivation in Clam 1.)
wherein the one or more adjacent or non-adjacent neighboring blocks are used for constructed candidate generation in one of following manners: affine AMVP or merge mode for inter prediction, (“using advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) or merge mode. Video encoder 200 may use similar modes to encode motion vectors for affine motion compensation mode.” Li, Paragraphs 137, 114.)
wherein the inherited candidate generation is based on vector concatenation, and (“derive [inherit], for a current block of video data and using decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD), a list of intra modes using reconstructed samples of neighboring blocks;” Li, Paragraph 157. See similarly in Zhang, Paragraphs 277.)
wherein the vector concatenation comprises: obtaining, by the decoder, neighboring LTVs of an adjacent or non-adjacent neighboring block; (“derive [inherit], for a current block of video data and using decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD), a list of intra modes using reconstructed samples of neighboring blocks;” Li, Paragraph 157. See similarly in Zhang, Paragraphs 277.)
obtaining, by the decoder, a displacement vector between the adjacent or non-adjacent neighboring block and the current block; (“n HEVC, motion vector differences (MVDs) (between the motion vector and predicted motion vector of a PU) are signaled in units of quarter luma samples when use_integer_mv flag is equal to 0 in the slice header. In the VVC, a locally adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR) is introduced. In the VVC, MVD can be coded in units of quarter luma samples, integer luma samples or four luma samples (i.e., ¼-pel, 1 -pel, 4-pel).” Zhang, Paragraph 155. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
and obtaining, by the decoder, the one or more LTVs for the current block based on the neighboring LTVs, the displacement vector, and sizes of the adjacent or non-adjacent neighboring block and the current block.” (Prior art teaches this methodology: “The derivation process for spatial motion vector candidates from neighboring coding units as specified in clause 8.6.2.3 is invoked with the luma coding block location (xCb, yCb) set equal to (xSmr, ySmr), the luma coding block width cbWidth, and the luma coding block height cbHeight set equal to smrWidth and smrHeight as inputs, and the outputs being the availability flags availableFlagAi, availableFlagB1 and the motion vectors mvA1 and mvB1” Zhang, Paragraphs 277, 111-112. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining, by the decoder, the one or more LTVs for the current block comprises: deriving, by the decoder, the one or more LTVs for the current block based on LTVs of one or more spatial neighboring blocks.” (“derive [inherit], for a current block of video data and using decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD), a list of intra modes using reconstructed samples of neighboring blocks;” Li, Paragraph 157. See similarly in Zhang, Paragraphs 277.)
Regarding Claim 14: “The method of claim 13, further comprising:
obtaining, by the decoder, an LTV index that indicates a best LTV selected from a list of LTV candidates, (For example, “bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs, i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD)” Zhang, Paragraph 161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
wherein the list of LTV candidates has a predetermined size, (“if the IBC merge list size is still smaller than the maximum [predetermined] IBC merge list size, IBC candidates from HMVP table may be inserted.” Zhang, Paragraph 206.)
wherein the LTV index is determined by an encoder based on rate-distortion optimization algorithms.” (For example, “bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs, i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD)” Zhang, Paragraph 161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The method of claim 14, further comprising:
obtaining, by the decoder, a reordered list of LTV candidates by reordering one or more LTV candidates in the list of LTV candidates based on a predetermined cost, wherein the predetermined cost comprises at least one of following costs: a bilateral matching cost or a template cost, (For example, “bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs, i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD)” Zhang, Paragraph 161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
wherein the obtaining of the reordered list of LTV candidates comprises: … predefining, by the decoder, a distance set of LTV with vector differences (LTVDs); (For example, “3The computed (x0, y0) are added to the integer distance refinement MV to get the sub-pixel accurate refinement delta MV.” Zhang, Paragraphs 195, 335. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
and selecting, by the decoder, a base LTV candidate from first N candidates in the reordered list of LTV candidates, wherein N is a positive integer; and (“the decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) … bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs [LTVPs], i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates,” where the best one is a case where N = 1. Zhang, Paragraphs 160-161. Also see “the maximum IBC merge list size” in Zhang, Paragraph 206. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
obtaining, by the decoder, a reordered list of LTVD refinement positions by reordering one or more LTVD refinement positions for the base LTV candidate based on a SAD cost between a template of the current block and a reference of each refinement position, (For example, “bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs, i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD)” Zhang, Paragraph 161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the decoder, the one or more LTVD refinement positions based on a size of the distance set and a size of LTVD directions; or selecting, by the decoder, first M refinement positions from the reordered list of LTVD refinement positions for LTVD index coding.” (“specifies whether the first (0) or the second (1) candidate in the merging candidate list is used with the motion vector difference derived from mmvd_distance_idx[x0][y0] and mmvd_direction_idx[x0] [y0]” Zhang, Paragraph 335 which is refined according to Zhang, TABLE 7-12. Cumulatively, prior art also teaches: “bilateral matching is performed to refine the MVs, i.e., to find the best MVD among several MVD candidates. … that could minimize the cost function (e.g., SAD)” Zhang, Paragraph 161. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 16: “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the decoder, whether a reference block of the current block is within a reconstructed area; (“may implicitly derive intra modes for a current block based on reconstructed samples of neighboring blocks” Li, Paragraph 5.)
in response to determining that the reference block is within the reconstructed area, determining, by the decoder, that the one or more LTVs are valid; and (For example, “determining, during a conversion between a video region of a video and a bitstream representation of the video, that an intra block copy (IBC) alternative motion vector predictor (AMVP) candidate index or an IBC merge candidate index fails to identify a block vector candidate in a block vector candidate list; and performing, based on the determining, the conversion by treating the video region as having an invalid block vector.” Zhang, Paragraphs 13, 568. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
in response to determining that the reference block is not within the reconstructed area, determining, by the decoder, that the one or more LTVs are invalid, (For example, “determining, during a conversion between a video region of a video and a bitstream representation of the video, that an intra block copy (IBC) alternative motion vector predictor (AMVP) candidate index or an IBC merge candidate index fails to identify a block vector candidate in a block vector candidate list; and performing, based on the determining, the conversion by treating the video region as having an invalid block vector.” Zhang, Paragraphs 13, 568. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
wherein determining whether the reference block of the current block is within the reconstructed area comprises: determining whether four reference blocks corresponding to four corner sub-blocks of the current block are within the reconstructed area.” (“four merge candidates are selected among candidates located in the positions depicted in Ai, Bi, B0, A0 and B2 as depicted in FIG. 2,” which illustrates reference blocks corresponding to four corner sub-blocks. See, Zhang, Paragraph 205, and Fig. 2. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 17: “The method of claim 1, further comprising: restricting, by the decoder, precision of the one or more LTV s in one of following manners: … restricting the precision of the one or more LTV s to be integer values; or … restricting the precision of the one or more LTVs to be no finer than a specific sub-pixel precision.” (“In the VVC, MVD can be coded in units of quarter luma samples, integer luma samples or four luma samples (i.e., ¼-pel, 1 -pel, 4-pel). The MVD resolution is controlled at the coding unit (CU) level, and MVD resolution flags are conditionally signaled for each CU.” Zhang, Paragraph 155 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 18: “The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to determining that two LTVs of the one or more LTVs are equal, restraining, by the decoder, that the multi-model IBC applies 2-paramter model only; or determining, by the decoder, that the multi-model IBC that adaptively switches among the different models, wherein each of the different models has a degree of parameters that is no less than 2, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the 2-parameter model is a regular motion vector model, that is, it does not perform additional affine transformations. Prior art first teaches: “After candidate at position A1 is added, the insertion of the remaining candidates is subject to a redundancy check which ensures that candidates with same motion information are excluded from the list so that coding efficiency is improved” Zhang, Paragraph 205. In this case, “an inter-coded coding unit (CU) can apply IBC if it chooses the current picture as its reference picture. The MV is renamed as block vector (BV) in this case, and a BV always has an integer-pixel precision.” Zhang, Paragraph 196. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
wherein the 2-paramter model performs in one of following manners: the 2-paramater model comprises one translational vector and performs block level motion compensation; or the 2-paramter model comprises one translation vector and performs sub-block level motion compensation.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the 2-parameter model is a regular motion vector model, that is, it does not perform additional affine transformations. Prior art teaches this: “an inter-coded coding unit (CU) can apply IBC if it chooses the current picture as its reference picture. The MV is renamed as block vector (BV) in this case, and a BV always has an integer-pixel precision.” Zhang, Paragraph 196. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claim 19: “An apparatus for video decoding,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches the following:
“one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors and configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors, (“memory 120 may store instructions to be executed by video decoder 300, when some or all of the functionality of video decoder 300 is implemented in software to be executed by processing circuitry of video decoder 300.” Li, Paragraph 162.)
wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions, are configured to receive a bitstream and perform operations for video decoding based on the bitstream, …” (“CPB memory 320 may store video data, such as an encoded video bitstream, to be decoded” Li, Paragraph 161.)
Claim 20: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream to be decoded by a method for video decoding comprising …” is rejected because prior art teaches: “CPB memory 320 may store video data, such as an encoded video bitstream, to be decoded” Li, Paragraph 161. As noted in Claim Construction section above, the element of the method of video decoding do not limit the claim of “computer-readable storage medium” because an intended method of application of the medium does not limit the medium itself. Cumulatively, the method of video decoding is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights