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 § 102
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 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kadono et al. (Pub. No. US 2004/0076237 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Kadono discloses One or more memory or storage devices having stored thereon a program ([0247] recording a program implementing the steps of … method to a floppy disk or other computer-readable data recording medium; [0251]; [0257] The software for … can be stored to any computer-readable data recording medium (such as a CD-ROM disc, floppy disk, or hard disk drive)).
See MPEP 2111.05 (III), when determining the scope of the claims, “an encoded bitstream” is not given patentable weight, because “an encoded bitstream” is non-functional descriptive material. It is merely static data that imparts no function (unlike an executable computer program which performs a function). It does not have any functional relationship with the intended computer system. Thus, the computer-readable data recording medium disclosed in Kadono meets claim 20.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ZHAO et al. (US 20250142093 A1).
Regarding claim 1. (Original) ZHAO discloses A method for decoding a current block (figure 3, abstract, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video), comprising:
decoding, from a compressed bitstream, an index of a motion vector candidate of a list of motion vector candidates ([0075] With the AMVP mode, a reference index, an MVP candidate index referring to an AMVP candidate list and motion vector difference (MVD) is signaled. Regarding the merge mode, only a merge index referring to a merge candidate list is signaled);
determining a subset of motion vector candidates to generate based on the index ([0214] In the decoder side, only the candidates within a chosen subgroup need to be reordered);
generating the subset of motion vector candidates, wherein the subset of motion vector candidates is a proper subset of the list of motion vector candidates ([0214] In the decoder side, only the candidates within a chosen subgroup need to be reordered; [0213] organize the available merge candidates into subgroups);
selecting, based on the index, the motion vector candidate from the subset of motion vector candidates ([0214] In the decoder side, only the candidates within a chosen subgroup need to be reordered; [0075] With the AMVP mode, a reference index, an MVP candidate index referring to an AMVP candidate list and motion vector difference (MVD) is signaled. Regarding the merge mode, only a merge index referring to a merge candidate list is signaled); and
decoding the current block using the motion vector candidate ([0075] Inter prediction aims to remove the temporal redundancy between adjacent frames, which serves as an indispensable component in the hybrid video coding framework. Specifically, inter prediction makes use of the contents specified by motion vector (MV) as the predicted version of the current to-be-coded block, thus only residual signals and motion information are transmitted in the bitstream. With the AMVP mode, a reference index, an MVP candidate index referring to an AMVP candidate list and motion vector difference (MVD) is signaled. Regarding the merge mode, only a merge index referring to a merge candidate list is signaled).
Regarding claim 2. (Original) ZHAO discloses The method of claim 1, comprising:
determining that the subset of motion vector candidates is a proper subset of the list of motion vector candidates responsive to determining that a cardinality of the list of motion vector candidates is less than a threshold number of motion vector candidates ([0175] N is the maximum allowed candidate number can be inserted into MVP list in the corresponding single or joint group).
Regarding claim 3. (Original) ZHAO discloses The method of claim 2, comprising:
decoding, from the compressed bitstream, the threshold number of motion vector candidates ([0178] N can be signaled in the bitstream).
Regarding claim 4. (Original) ZHAO discloses The method of claim 2, comprising:
determining the threshold number of motion vector candidates using a block size of the current block ([0290] the threshold for a certain pass or group is determined by the decoding information, including but not limited to the block size).
Regarding claim 5. (Currently amended) ZHAO discloses The method of claim 1, wherein decoding, from the compressed bitstream, the index of the motion vector candidate of the list of motion vector candidates comprises:
decoding, from the compressed bitstream, a codeword indicative of the subset of motion vector candidates ([0075] With the AMVP mode, a reference index, an MVP candidate index referring to an AMVP candidate list and motion vector difference (MVD) is signaled. Regarding the merge mode, only a merge index referring to a merge candidate list is signaled); and
decoding, from the compressed bitstream, an offset index for the motion vector candidate within the subset of motion vector candidates ([0075] With the AMVP mode, a reference index, an MVP candidate index referring to an AMVP candidate list and motion vector difference (MVD) is signaled. Regarding the merge mode, only a merge index referring to a merge candidate list is signaled).
Regarding claim 7. (Currently amended) ZHAO discloses The method of claim 1, comprising:
decoding, from the compressed bitstream, a number of motion vector candidates to generate for the subset of motion vector candidates ([0099] The maximum allowed non-adjacent TMVP number in the MVP list may be signaled in the bitstream; [0178] N can be signaled in the bitstream; [0215] the candidates can be categorized into subgroups according to the candidates' category, such as non-adjacent MVP, temporal MVP (TMVP) or HMVP, etc (non-adjacent TMVP can be a subgroup)).
Regarding claim 8. (Currently amended) ZHAO discloses The method of claim 1, comprising:
decoding, from the compressed bitstream, a first number of motion vector candidates corresponding to a first subset of the list of motion vector candidates; and
decoding, from the compressed bitstream, a second number of motion vector candidates corresponding to a second subset of the list of motion vector candidates ([0180] different single or joint groups may have different N value; [0178] N can be signaled in the bitstream).
Regarding claim 9. (Currently amended) ZHAO discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the subset of the motion vector candidates comprises:
performing a pruning process so that the subset of the motion vector candidates does not include duplicate motion vector candidates ([0076] To avoid redundant MV candidates, duplicated motion vector candidates in the list are abandoned; [0077] performing availability and redundant checking).
Regarding claim 10. (Currently amended) ZHAO discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the subset of motion vector candidates includes an other motion vector candidate, and wherein the other motion vector candidate is a candidate from another subset of motion vector candidates that corresponds to another index that is different from the index ([0241] at least two single/joint groups may have overlap MVP candidates; [0247] different single/joint groups may have overlap candidates).
Regarding claim 11. (Original) the same analysis has been stated in claim 1 (corresponding encoding method).
Regarding claim 12. (Original) the same analysis has been stated in claims 2-3.
Regarding claim 13. (Currently amended) the same analysis has been stated in claim 5.
Regarding claim 15. (Currently amended) the same analysis has been stated in claim 7.
Regarding claim 16. (Currently amended) the same analysis has been stated in claim 8.
Regarding claim 17. (Currently amended) the same analysis has been stated in claim 9.
Regarding claim 18. (Currently amended) the same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 19. (Currently amended) the same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 20. (Currently amended) the same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
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.
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 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHAO et al. (US 20250142093 A1).
Regarding claim 6. (Original) ZHAO discloses The method of claim 5, wherein a codeword is decoded using truncated unary coding ([0318] A syntax element may be binarized with a truncated unary code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to code the codeword indicative of the subset of motion vector candidates using a truncated unary code.
Regarding claim 14. (Original) the same analysis has been stated in claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-5pm.
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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
