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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-8, 11, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0031595 A1 (“Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (e.g. see encoder and/or decoder, e.g. see at least encoder in Fig. 7 and/or decoder in Fig. 8), a target value of a parameter (e.g. see setting the value of the lambda parameter, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]) for ordering a plurality of motion candidates (e.g. see diversity reordering … inside a merge candidate list, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]) for the current video unit (e.g. see current block, e.g. see at least Fig. 2) from a set of candidate values of the parameter (e.g. see a set of lambda values, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]), wherein the parameter is associated with cost differences related to the plurality of motion candidates (e.g. see cost difference, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]), and the current video unit is a portion of a slice of the video (e.g. see slice, paragraphs [0087], [0300]); and
performing the conversion based on the target value (e.g. see encoder and/or decoder, e.g. see at least encoder in Fig. 7 and/or decoder in Fig. 8 converting between block data and coded video sequence, based on diversity reordering as disclosed in paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]).
Regarding claim 2, Li further discloses wherein the set of candidate values is indicated in the bitstream or predefined (e.g. see set of lambda values provided in the SPS or in the slice header, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]).
Regarding claim 3, Li further discloses wherein each candidate value in the set of candidate values corresponds to a quantization parameter (QP) value (e.g. see set of lambda values corresponding to … QP offset, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]).
Regarding claim 6, Li further discloses wherein the set of candidate values is indicated in the bitstream in a predictive way (e.g. see set of lambda values provided in the SPS or in the slice header, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]).
Regarding claim 7, Li further discloses wherein determining the target value comprises:
selecting the target value from the set of candidate values based on one of the following:
coding information of the current video unit, coding information of the slice, or coding information of a picture comprising the current video unit (e.g. see a set of lambda values corresponding to each signaled QP offset is provided in the SPS or in the slice header for the QP offsets, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]).
Regarding claim 8, Li further discloses wherein the coding information comprises a QP value (e.g. see QP offsets, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]).
Regarding claim 11, Li further disclose wherein the coding information comprises a QP offset (e.g. see QP offsets, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]).
Regarding claim 15, Li further discloses wherein the parameter is represented by lambda (X) (e.g. see lambda, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]).
Regarding claim 16, Li further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video unit into the bitstream (e.g. see encoder, e.g. see at least encoder in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 17, Li further discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video unit from the bitstream (e.g. see decoder, e.g. see at least decoder in Fig. 8).
Regarding claims 18-19 and 21, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2009/0213930 A1 (“Ye”).
Regarding claim 4, although Li discloses wherein the set of candidate values comprises candidate values corresponding to all QP values allowed to be used at a decoder (e.g. see a set of lambda values corresponding to each signaled QP offset is provided in the SPS or in the slice header for the QP offsets, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]), it is noted Li differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose a subset of QP values in all QP values. Ye however, teaches a subset of QP values in all QP values (e.g. see a subset of possible quantization parameters, paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Li and Ye before him/her, to modify the Method for diversified merge candidate reordering of Li with the teachings of Ye in order to realize different bit rates and degrees of quality.
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Ye further discloses wherein the subset of QP values comprises QP values between a first threshold and a second threshold, or wherein differences, each of which is between two adjacent QP values in the subset of QP values, are the same (Ye: e.g. see a subset of possible quantization parameters, paragraph [0010]; a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no difficulty recognizing that a subset of possible QPs would include a lower QP value and a higher QP value that are included in the subset; also, see range selected will simply extend by an integer offset less than the predicted QP and an integer offset higher than the predicted QP, paragraphs [0048]-[0049]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 4 applies here.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2025/0254290 A1 (“Laroche”).
Regarding claim 14, although Li discloses the set of candidate values (e.g. see a set of lambda values, paragraphs [0296]-[0300], [0379]), it is noted Li differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein at least a part of the set of candidate values is absent from the bitstream and determined at a decoder, or wherein a set of candidate values for the parameter used in diversity reordering for an inter prediction tool is different from a set of candidate values for the parameter used in diversity reordering for intra block copy (IBC). Laroche however, teaches wherein at least a part of the set of candidate values is absent from the bitstream and determined at a decoder, or wherein a set of candidate values for the parameter used in diversity reordering for an inter prediction tool is different from a set of candidate values for the parameter used in diversity reordering for intra block copy (IBC) (e.g. see computing/deriving lambda at decoder, paragraphs [0292]-[0294], [0308]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Li and Laroche before him/her, to modify the Method for diversified merge candidate reordering of Li with the teachings of Laroche in order to save rate to transmit lambda value.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 8-10 or the Remarks that the prior art does not disclose "the current video unit is a portion of a slice of the video (referred to as feature (1) hereinafter)” because "Li at best discloses that the lambda value is provided at the slice level or the SPS level. On the contrary, the above feature (1) explicitly specifies that the current video unit is a portion of a slice of the video. In other words, the target value of the parameter is determined at a level lower than the slice level… Li is completely silent about determining a target value of the parameter for a current video unit that is at a granularity finer than the slice level."
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "the target value of the parameter is determined at a level lower than the slice level" or "determining a target value of the parameter for a current video unit that is at a granularity finer than the slice level") are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 12-13 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.
US 2024/0031600 A1, Li et al., INTER PREDICTION DIRECTION AND BCW INDEX CODING IN MERGE MODE
US 2015/0256832 A1, Pearson et al., APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR PERFORMING VIDEO QUANTIZATION RATE DISTORTION CALCULATIONS
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights