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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/03/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2, 9 and 16 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. These dependent claims are unclear due to teaching away from the independent claims. For example, the independent claims state that the current block is decoded based on the first refined MV selected for the one of the AMVP predictor and the merge predictor and one of the unrefined MVs selected for the other of the AMVP predictor and the merge predictor. In other words, decoding the current block using refined AMVP predictor and unrefined merge predictor or vice versa. Now, dependent claim 2 for example, states that there is a MV refinement on the other of the AMVP/merge predictor. But, the decoding of the current block doesn’t use this second refinement and makes the claim confusing and unclear. Please clarify the claim limitations.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Galpin et al. (herein after will be referred to as Galpin) (US 20250260826).
Regarding claim 1, Galpin discloses a method of video decoding at a decoder, comprising:
decoding prediction information of a current block in a current picture of a video sequence, the prediction information indicating a bilateral matching advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP)-merge mode for the current block; [See Galpin [0184-0186] Bilateral matching AMVP-merge mode is applied for a coding block. Also, see Fig. 3, Video decoder with prediction.]
determining an AMVP predictor and a merge predictor for the current block; [See Galpin [0184-0186] AMVP predictor and merge predictor.]
performing a first motion vector (MV) refinement on one of unrefined MVs of the AMVP predictor and the merge predictor to obtain a first refined MV for one of the AMVP predictor and the merge predictor; and [See Galpin [0184-0186] Template matching MV refinement may be applied to the merge predictor or the AMVP predictor (e.g., which has a higher template matching cost).]
decoding the current block based on the first refined MV selected for the one of the AMVP predictor and the merge predictor and one of the unrefined MVs selected for the other of the AMVP predictor and the merge predictor. [See Galpin [0184-0186] Video decoder with prediction.]
Regarding claim 2, Galpin discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Galpin discloses
further comprising: performing a second MV refinement on the other of the AMVP predictor and the merge predictor to obtain a second refined MV for the other of the AMVP predictor and the merge predictor. [See Galpin [0184-0186] The bilateral matching MV refinement may be applied for the merge MV candidate and AMVP MVP as a starting point.]
Regarding claim 3, Galpin discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Galpin discloses
wherein the first MV refinement is one of bilateral matching refinement and template matching refinement. [See Galpin [0184-0186] Template matching MV refinement.]
Regarding claim 6, Galpin discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Galpin discloses
wherein the merge mode used in the bilateral matching AMVP-merge mode is one of affine merge, combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP), merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD), intra block copy (IBC) merge, and geometric partition mode (GPM). [See Galpin [0145] Affine merge mode.]
Regarding claim 7, Galpin discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Galpin discloses
wherein the AMVP mode used in the bilateral matching AMVP-merge mode is one of affine mode, and intra block copy (IBC) merge mode. [See Galpin [0145] Affine AMVP mode.]
Regarding claim 8, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 18-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250220210 (fails to qualify as prior art) but discloses using the MVD to refine candidates in affine AMVP and/or affine merge candidate lists (para. 0584).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights