DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 03/31/2025, wherein claims 1-24 have been examined and are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 03/31/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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 1-3, 7, 9, 11-15, 19, 21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (U.S. 2024/0259559) hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for performing inter prediction in a video decoder, comprising:
receiving a coding unit in a bitstream of a video, the coding unit being coded with a Template Matching (TM) process and a Bilateral Matching (BM) process (Zhang [0239]: Template matching TM with bilateral matching BM can be used);
determining an order of the TM and BM processes; and performing, based on the determined order of the TM and BM processes, inter prediction to reconstruct the received coding unit (Zhang [0239]: Template matching TM can be cascaded with bilateral matching process; [0241], [0490], [0651]-[0652]: when TM is enabled, template matching may work as an extra MV refinement process between block based and sub-block based bilateral matching BM methods. Hence, performing TM and BM based on a determined order; [0072]-[0073]: inter prediction to reconstruct coding unit).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 1
Zhang discloses wherein the determining step further comprises: determining a predefined order of the TM and BM processes, as the determined order of the TM and BM processes, or determining, based on a syntax element included in the bitstream, an order of the TM and BM processes, as the determined order of the TM and BM processes (Zhang [0239]: Template matching TM can be cascaded with bilateral matching process; [0241], [0490], [0652]: when TM is enabled, template matching may work as an extra MV refinement process between block based and sub-block based bilateral matching BM methods. Hence, performing TM and BM based on a predefined order).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses a method for performing inter prediction in a video encoder, comprising:
performing, based on a determined order of a Template Matching (TM) process and a Bilateral Matching (BM) process, inter prediction to code a coding unit; and transmitting the coded coding unit in a bitstream of a video (Zhang [0239]: Template matching TM can be cascaded with bilateral matching process; [0241], [0490], [0652]: when TM is enabled, template matching may work as an extra MV refinement process between block based and sub-block based bilateral matching BM methods. Hence, performing TM and BM based on a determined order; [0645], [0767]: bitstream with coding block).
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 13.
Zhang discloses wherein the performing step further comprises determining a predefined order of the TM and BM processes, as the determined order of the TM and BM processes, or the performing step further comprises deciding an order of the TM and BM processes, and the transmitting step further comprises transmitting, in the bitstream, a syntax element for indicating the decided order of the TM and BM processes (Zhang [0239]: Template matching TM can be cascaded with bilateral matching process; [0241], [0490], [0652]: when TM is enabled, template matching may work as an extra MV refinement process between block based and sub-block based bilateral matching BM methods. Hence, performing TM and BM based on a predefined order).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Zhang discloses wherein the BM process includes, in a sequence, a block-level motion vector (MV) refinement, a subblock-level MV refinement, and a subblock-level bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) MV refinement, where whether a succeeding refinement is performed or not is dependent on a cost of a preceding refinement (Zhang [0481]: multi-pass motion vector refinement DMVR wherein in a first pass, bilateral matching BM is applied to a coding block. In a second pass, BM is applied to each subblock within the coding block. In the third pass, MV in each subblock is refined by applying bi-directional optical flow BDOF; Claims 3-4: subblock-based BM refinement is disabled if a minimum matching cost of the block-based BM refinement is smaller than a threshold, hence a succeeding refinement is performed or not is dependent on a cost of a preceding refinement), and
the TM process, when performed, is performed right after the block-level MV refinement of the BM process (Zhang [0241], [0490], [0651]-[0652]: when TM is enabled, template matching may work as an extra MV refinement process between block based and sub-block based bilateral matching BM methods. Hence, TM is performed right after the block-level MV refinement of the BM process).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claims 3 and 15, respectively.
Zhang discloses wherein the subblock-level MV refinement is performed after the TM process, regardless of a cost of the block-level MV refinement (Zhang [0241], [0490], [0652]: when TM is enabled, template matching may work as an extra MV refinement process between block based and sub-block based bilateral matching BM methods. Hence, performing TM and BM based on a determined order. Zhang does not mention about performing subblock-level MV refinement or not based on cost of block-level MV refinement. Hence, the subblock-level MV refinement is performed after the TM process, regardless of a cost of the block-level MV refinement).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 13, respectively.
Zhang discloses wherein the BM process includes, in a sequence, a block-level motion vector (MV) refinement, a subblock-level MV refinement, and a subblock-level bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) MV refinement, where whether a succeeding refinement is performed or not is dependent on a cost of a preceding refinement (Zhang [0481]: multi-pass motion vector refinement DMVR wherein in a first pass, bilateral matching BM is applied to a coding block. In a second pass, BM is applied to each subblock within the coding block. In the third pass, MV in each subblock is refined by applying bi-directional optical flow BDOF; Claims 3-4: subblock-based BM refinement is disabled if a minimum matching cost of the block-based BM refinement is smaller than a threshold, hence a succeeding refinement is performed or not is dependent on a cost of a preceding refinement), and
the BM process, when performed, is performed after the TM process (Zhang [0239]: Template matching TM can be cascaded with bilateral matching BM process. Hence, BM process is performed after the TM process).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Zhang discloses wherein in response to a cost of the TM process being less than or equal to a third threshold, or a cost of the block-level MV refinement being less than or equal to a fourth threshold, or a cost reduction of a best block-level MV refinement being unable to be more than a cost reduction of an initial block-level MV refinement, the subblock-level MV refinement is prohibited (Zhang Claims 3-4: subblock-based BM refinement is disabled if a minimum matching cost of the block-based BM refinement is smaller than a threshold).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claims 9 and 21, respectively.
Zhang discloses wherein in response to a cost of the block-level MV refinement being less than or equal to a sixth threshold, or a cost reduction of a best block-level MV refinement being unable to be more than a cost reduction of an initial block-level MV refinement, usage of an MV modification from the BM process is prohibited (Zhang Claims 3-4: subblock-based BM refinement is disabled if a minimum matching cost of the block-based BM refinement is smaller than a threshold).
Regarding claim 23, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 21.
Zhang discloses wherein the subblock-level MV refinement is prohibited in response to one of the following conditions: a cost of the TM process being less than or equal to a third threshold, a cost of the block-level MV refinement being less than or equal to a fourth threshold, or a cost reduction of a best block-level MV refinement being unable to be more than a cost reduction of an initial block-level MV refinement. (Zhang Claims 3-4: subblock-based BM refinement is disabled with a minimum matching cost of the block-based BM refinement is smaller than a threshold).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
2. Claims 4-5 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U.S. 2024/0259559) hereinafter Zhang, in view of Chen et al. (WO 2022/146833) hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Zhang discloses all the limitations of claims 3 and 15, respectively.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein in response to a minimum cost of the block-level MV refinement being less than or equal to a threshold, the TM process is prohibited.
However, Chen discloses wherein in response to a minimum cost of the block-level MV refinement being less than or equal to a threshold, the TM process is prohibited (Chen [0143]: the regular TM can be present right after the first pass of multi-pass DMVR; [0142], [0147]: when BM is applied before regular TM, the regular TM may be skipped if the bilateral matching cost of BM is less than a given threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method having first pass of the DMVR is a block-level MV refinement, and followed by a TM process, as disclosed by Zhang, and further incorporate having wherein in response to a minimum cost of the block-level MV refinement being less than or equal to a threshold, the TM process is prohibited, as taught by Chen, to improve video quality (Chen [0032]).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Zhang and Chen disclose all the limitations of claims 4 and 16, respectively.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein the threshold is a non-negative integer, and a value of the threshold is predefined or adaptable based on the coding unit.
However, Chen discloses the threshold is a non-negative integer, and a value of the threshold is predefined or adaptable based on the coding unit (Chen [0143]: the regular TM can be present right after the first pass of multi-pass DMVR; [0142], [0147]: when BM is applied before regular TM, the regular TM may be skipped if the bilateral matching cost of BM is less than a given threshold. The scale can be a positive real number and predefined).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system and method, as disclosed by Zhang, and further incorporate having the threshold is a non-negative integer, and a value of the threshold is predefined or adaptable based on the coding unit, the TM process is prohibited, as taught by Chen, to improve video quality (Chen [0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8,10, 18, 20 and 22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records.
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the prior arts of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the claims the feature of in response to a minimum cost of the block-level MV refinement being less than or equal to a first threshold, the TM process is performed with a search range smaller than a second threshold as cited in claims 6 and 18.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the prior arts of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the claims the feature of in response to a cost of the TM process being less than or equal to a threshold, the subblock-level MV refinement is prohibited as cited in claims 9 and 20.
Regarding claims 10 and 22, the prior arts of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the claims the feature of in response to a cost of the TM process being less than or equal to a threshold, the BM process is prohibited as cited in claims 10 and 22.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0626. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie Atala can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KATHLEEN V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights