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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp.7-9, filed May 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent claim(s) 1, 6, and 11 under 35. U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly considered prior art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection to claims 1-11 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seregin et al. (US 2021/0266600) in view of Bross et al. (“Versatile Video Coding (Draft 8)”, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of Itu-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 17th Meeting: Brussels, BE, 7-17 January 2020, Document: JVET-Q2001-vE).
Regarding claim 1 Seregin discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor connected to the memory (device for decoding video data includes a memory and one or more processors – [0007]), the at least one processor being configured to:
determine an inter-prediction mode of a current block (for inter-prediction modes, signaling data representing the various available inter-prediction modes is used, as well as motion information for the corresponding mode. For uni-directional or bi-directional inter-prediction, for example, video encoder may encode motion vectors using advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) or merge mode. Video encoder may use similar modes to encode motion vectors for affine motion compensation mode – [0059]),
derive motion information of the current block based on the inter-prediction mode, and obtain a prediction block of the current block based on the motion information (video decoder uses a signaled prediction mode (intra- or inter-prediction) and related prediction information (e.g., motion information for inter-prediction) to form a prediction block for the block – [0067]),
wherein the prediction block is obtained based on weighted prediction information for explicit weighted prediction of the current block (signaling a weighted prediction table when inter prediction is allowed – [0110-0113]),
wherein the weighted prediction information includes weight number information, wherein the weight number information includes L0 weight number information specifying a number of weights signaled in an L0 direction and L1 weight number information specifying a number of weights signaled in an L1 direction (in the weighted prediction table signaling, there are two syntax elements num_l0_weights and num_l1_weights – [0123]).
Seregin further discloses signaling L0 weight number information and L1 weight number information based on a first flag and a second flag (num_l0_weights, num_l1_weights, wp_info_in_ph_flag, and pps_weighted_bipred_flag – [0115, 0123]).
However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the L0 weight number information is adaptively signaled based on a first flag regardless of a second flag, and the L1 weight number information is adaptively signaled based on both the first flag and the second flag, wherein the first flag equal to 1 specifies that the weighted prediction information could be present in a picture header, and the first flag equal to 0 specifies that the weighted prediction information could be present in the slice header, and wherein the second flag equal to 1 specifies that the explicit weighted prediction is applied to a bi-predictive (B) slice, and the second flag equal to 0 specifies that the explicit weighted prediction is not applied to the B slice.
In his disclosure Bross teaches the L0 weight number information is adaptively signaled based on a first flag regardless of a second flag, and the L1 weight number information is adaptively signaled based on both the first flag and the second flag (num_l0_weights being adaptively signaled based on wp_info_in_ph_flag; note wp_info_in_ph_flag is being considered as the first flag; adaptively signaling num_l1_weights based on wp_info_in_ph_flag and pps_weighted_bipred_flag – p.62, Table in section 7.3.7.2 Weighted prediction parameters syntax; note pps_weighted_bipred_flag is being interpreted as the second flag), wherein the first flag equal to 1 specifies that the weighted prediction information could be present in a picture header (wp_info_in_ph_flag – p.62, Table in section 7.3.7.2 Weighted prediction parameters syntax), and the first flag equal to 0 specifies that the weighted prediction information could be present in the slice header (wp_info_in_ph_flag equal to 0 specifies that weighted prediction information is not present in the PH syntax structure and may be present in slice headers – p.118, wp_info_in_ph_flag description), and wherein the second flag equal to 1 specifies that the explicit weighted prediction is applied to a bi-predictive (B) slice, and the second flag equal to 0 specifies that the explicit weighted prediction is not applied to the B slice (pps_weighted_bipred_flag equal to 0 specifies that explicit weighted prediction is not applied to B slices referring to the PPS; pps_weighted_bipred_flag equal to 1 specifies that explicit weighted prediction is applied to B slices referring to the PPS – p.117, pps_weighted_bipred_flag description).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bross into the teachings of Seregin because such incorporation would yield predictable results since they are part of the video coding standard.
Regarding claim 2 Seregin discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Seregin further discloses using merge mode as a form of inter-prediction (paragraph 59).
However, fails to explicitly disclose Owefthe motion information of the current block is derived based on a merge candidate list, and wherein the merge candidate list includes at least one of a spatial merge candidate, a temporal merge candidate, a history-based merge candidate, or an average merge candidate.
In his disclosure Bross teaches the motion information of the current block is derived based on a merge candidate list, and wherein the merge candidate list includes at least one of a spatial merge candidate, a temporal merge candidate, a history-based merge candidate, or an average merge candidate (a merge candidate list being input for the derivation process for history-based merging candidates – p.231, section 8.5.2.6 Derivation process for history-based merging candidates).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bross into the teachings of Seregin because such incorporation would yield predictable results since they are part of the video coding standard.
Regarding claim 4 Seregin discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Seregin discloses a weighted prediction flag to signal whether to apply weighted prediction (paragraphs 111-116).
However, Seregin is silent on obtaining the weighted prediction information for the explicit weighted prediction of the current block, deriving at least one of the weight or an offset for the explicit weighted prediction of the current block based on the weighted prediction information, and performing weighted prediction of the current block based on the at least one of the weight or the offset.
In his disclosure Bross teaches obtaining the weighted prediction information for the explicit weighted prediction of the current block, deriving at least one of the weight or an offset for the explicit weighted prediction of the current block based on the weighted prediction information, and performing weighted prediction of the current block based on the at least one of the weight or the offset (obtaining num_l0_weights, luma_offset_l0, num_l1_weights, among others based on pps_weighted_bipred_flag and wp_info_in_ph_flag – p.62, Table 7.3.7.2 Weighted prediction parameters syntax).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bross into the teachings of Seregin because such incorporation would yield predictable results since they are part of the video coding standard.
Regarding claim 5 Seregin discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein, based on either the first flag or the second flag being equal to 0, the L1 weight number information is not signaled but is derived to be 0 (paragraph 124 shows that when wp_info_in_ph_flag is zero, the values of num_l1_weights is not signaled).
Claim 6 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 7 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 2.
Claim 9 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
Claim 10 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 5.
Claim 11 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1. It is noted Seregin further discloses the transmission of coded bitstreams from a source device to a destination device (refer to Figure 1).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seregin et al. (US 2021/0266600) in view of Bross et al. (“Versatile Video Coding (Draft 8)”, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of Itu-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 17th Meeting: Brussels, BE, 7-17 January 2020, Document: JVET-Q2001-vE) further in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0413078).
Regarding claim 3 Seregin discloses the apparatus of claim 2. However, fails to explicitly disclose to modify a motion vector among the motion information based on a motion vector difference (MVD), and wherein the MVD is derived based on at least one of a length of the MVD, a direction of the MVD, or a picture order count (POC) difference between a reference picture of the current block and a current picture including the current block.
In his disclosure Li teaches modify a motion vector among the motion information based on a motion vector difference (MVD), and wherein the MVD is derived based on at least one of a length of the MVD, a direction of the MVD, or a picture order count (POC) difference between a reference picture of the current block and a current picture including the current block (symmetric MVC is shown in Fig. 12 and it is also shown: a current picture, a list-0 reference picture and a list-1 reference picture located on opposite sides of the current picture with a same distance (picture order count difference, POC distance) to the current picture; the motion vector difference for list-0 reference picture is represented by MVD0, and the motion vector difference for list-1 reference picture is represented by MVD1; in Fig. 12 MVD0 and MVD1 have equal length, but in opposite direction – [0140]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the MVD derivation of Li into the teachings of Seregin because merge mode techniques such as MVD improves coding efficiency (paragraph 79).
Claim 8 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights