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 Status
This Office Action responds to reply filed on 6/9/26 regarding application 19/115559 that was initially filed on 3/26/25. Claims 1-11 and 13 are pending.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
1. Claims 1 - 6, 8, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being anticipated by Chiang et al., US 2022/0086478 A1 (from IDS) (hereinafter Chiang).
As for claim 1, Chiang discloses an image decoding method ([0093], e.g., method and [0097], e.g., processor), the method comprising: performing a prediction based on a first prediction mode ([0044], e.g., uni-prediction or bi-prediction) to generate a basic prediction block ([0044], e.g., motion compensated predictor) of a current block ([0067], e.g., current block); deriving an additional reference block ([0044], e.g., second hypothesis of predictors and inter mode) of the current block based on a second prediction mode ([0044], e.g., motion compensation from Merge or Skip mode, or can be generated by an Intra prediction mode); and calculating a weighted sum ([0083], e.g., summing up multiple hypotheses of prediction with weightings) of the basic prediction block and the additional reference block to generate a final prediction block ([0083], e.g., prediction) of the current block, wherein when the first prediction mode and the second prediction mode are same ([0044], e.g., uni-prediction or bi-prediction and inter mode, note they are the same inter modes), a motion vector predictor (MVP) for the first prediction mode and an MVP for the second prediction mode are derived from a same MVP candidate list ([0057], e.g., the reference index is the same as that for the other hypothesis, note that as the same reference index is used, the same list is used).
As for claim 2, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Chiang further discloses wherein: the method further includes obtaining a flag indicating whether the additional reference block is used for the current block ([0045], e.g., flag).
As for claim 3, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Chiang further discloses wherein: the first prediction mode includes at least one of a merge mode ([0044], e.g., original … merge modes), a skip mode ([0044], e.g., original skip … modes), an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode, an intra block copy (IBC) mode or an AMVP-merge combined mode.
As for claim 4, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 3. In addition, Chiang further discloses wherein: the second prediction mode includes the at least one of the merge mode ([0044], e.g., motion compensation from Merge), the skip mode ([0044], e.g., motion compensation from … Skip mode), the AMVP mode, the IBC mode or the AMVP-merge combined mode.
As for claim 5, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Chiang further discloses wherein: the first prediction mode and the second prediction mode are determined as a specific combination within a predefined prediction mode combination set ([0044], e.g., uni-prediction or bi-prediction, Merge mode, and Skip mode).
As for claim 6, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 5. In addition, Chiang further discloses wherein: the predefined prediction mode combination set includes a plurality of combination candidates, the plurality of combination candidates are configured by including at least two of a merge mode, a skip mode, an AMVP mode, an IBC mode, an AMVP-merge combined mode, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM), a combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP) mode, a sub-block merge mode or an affine mode ([0044], e.g., uni-prediction or bi-prediction, Merge mode, and Skip mode).
As for claim 8, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Chiang further discloses wherein generating the basic prediction block includes: performing a unidirectional prediction ([0044], e.g., uni-prediction) to derive a third reference block ([0044], e.g., motion compensated predictor) of the current block; and generating the basic prediction block based on the third reference block ([0044], e.g., motion compensated predictor).
As for claim 11, the claim recites an image encoding method of the method of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 13, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 11. In addition, Chiang further discloses encoding the current block based on the final prediction block to generate a bitstream ([0094], e.g., encoded data); and transmitting ([0094], e.g., received) data including the bitstream.
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 of this title, 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.
2. Claims 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Koto et al., US 2004/0057523 A1 (hereinafter Koto).
As for claim 7, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Chiang further discloses wherein generating the basic prediction block includes: performing a bidirectional prediction to derive a first reference block and a second reference block of the current block ([0013], e.g., combining the candidates in L0 and L1).
Chiang does not explicitly disclose, but Koto teaches calculating a weighted sum of the first reference block and the second reference block to generate the basic prediction block ([0299], e.g., linear sum of a plurality of reference frames with variable linear sum weighting factors).
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 Chiang and Koto before him/her to modify the method and apparatus of motion compensation bandwidth reduction for video coding system utilizing multi-hypothesis of Chiang with the teaching of video encoding method and apparatus and video decoding method and apparatus of Koto with a motivation to obtain a final reference that is best prediction of the current block that in turn increase efficiency in processing of the data and transmission of the data by using the weighed sum.
As for claim 9, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Chiang further discloses wherein when a plurality of additional reference blocks ([0044], e.g., second hypothesis of predictors) are derived.
Chiang does not explicitly disclose, but Koto teaches the final prediction block is generated by sequentially weighted summing the plurality of additional reference blocks to the basic prediction block ([0299], e.g., linear sum of a plurality of reference frames with variable linear sum weighting factors).
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 Chiang and Koto before him/her to modify the method and apparatus of motion compensation bandwidth reduction for video coding system utilizing multi-hypothesis of Chiang with the teaching of video encoding method and apparatus and video decoding method and apparatus of Koto with a motivation to obtain a final reference that is best prediction of the current block that in turn increase efficiency in processing of the data and transmission of the data by using the weighed sum.
As for claim 10, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 9.
Chiang does not explicitly teach, but Koto teaches wherein: information on the second prediction mode includes at least one of weight information or prediction information, the weight information represents information indicating a weight used for a weighted sum of the additional reference block, the prediction information represents information for deriving the additional reference block ([0263], e.g., weight factor).
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 Chiang and Koto before him/her to modify the method and apparatus of motion compensation bandwidth reduction for video coding system utilizing multi-hypothesis of Chiang with the teaching of video encoding method and apparatus and video decoding method and apparatus of Koto with a motivation to obtain a final reference that is best prediction of the current block that in turn increase efficiency in processing of the data and transmission of the data by using the weighed sum.
Response to Arguments
Applicant 's arguments filed 6/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues with respect to claim 1 that Chiang is silent when the first and second modes are both the inter prediction mode, their respective MVPs are derived from [the] same MVP candidate list. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented above, Chiang disclosed the feature in [0057].
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2003/0108099 discloses picture encoding method and apparatus, picture decoding method and apparatus and furnishing medium.
2. US 2005/0053294 discloses techniques and tools for progressive and interlaced video coding and decoding.
3. US 2006/0126962 discloses methods and systems for reducing blocking artifacts with reduced complexity for spatially-scalable video coding.
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 extension fee 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 JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/JOSEPH SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights