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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 04/07/2025. Claims 1-14 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/07/2025 filed in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, it is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The specification has not been reviewed in detail to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's attention is directed to the specification, and applicant is requested to make any necessary corrections of which applicant is aware.
Claim interpretation
Claim 15 recites a method for transmitting a bitstream generated by an image encoding method,
The phrase “generated by an encoding method” describes the manner in which the bitstream is produced and is interpreted as product-by-process language, where the product is the bitstream and the recited encoding method is the process used to generate the bitstream.
MPEP §2113 explains that “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, but rather to the structure implied by those steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is directed to transmitting the resulting bitstream rather than to the performance of the encoding method itself.
2111.05 Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive Material [R-07.2022]
To be given patentable weight, the bitstream and the recited information represented therein must have a functional relationship with the claimed method of transmitting the bitstream. A functional relationship exists where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the claim method. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). Here, the information represented by the bitstream merely describes the content of the bitstream and does not functionally affect the claimed act of transmitting the bitstream. Therefore, the information represented by the bitstream is considered non-functional descriptive material and is given no patentable weight MPEP §2111.05(III).
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)(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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PARK, Naen (WO-2019103564-A1) hereinafter “Park”.
Regarding Claim 15 Park-JHU
Park discloses [Claim 15] A computer-readable medium storing bitstream generated by the image encoding method of Claim 13, (Park, [0324] “the bitstream generated by the encoding method can be stored …or transmitted over a wired or wireless communication network. Further, the processing method to which the present invention is applied may be produced in the form of a computer-executed program, and may be stored in a computer-readable recording medium. The multimedia data having the data structure according to the present invention can also be stored in a computer-readable recording medium. The computer-readable recording medium includes all kinds of storage devices and distributed storage devices in which computer-readable data is stored. The computer-readable recording medium may be, for example, a Blu-ray Disc (BD), a Universal Serial Bus (USB), a ROM, a PROM, an EPROM, an EEPROM, a RAM, a CD- Data storage devices. In addition, the computer-readable recording medium includes media implemented in the form of a carrier wave (for example, transmission over the Internet). In addition, the bit stream generated by the encoding method can be stored in a computer-readable recording medium or transmitted over a wired or wireless communication network. Further, an embodiment of the present invention may be embodied as a computer program product by program code, and the program code may be executed in a computer according to an embodiment of the present invention. The program code may be stored on a carrier readable by a computer.
In addition, the content streaming system to which the present invention is applied may include an encoding server, a streaming server, a web server, a media repository, a user device, and a multimedia input device.”)
The remaining limitations directed to the encoding method are not given patentable weight, as explained in claim interpretation section above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim limitation of “A computer-readable recording medium” is not limited to tangible embodiments. Reading said claim under the broadest interpretation “computer-readable recording medium” is considered to read on a transitory medium. As such the claim is not limited to statutory subject matter and are therefore non-statutory.
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
Claims 1-2, 5-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK, Naen (WO-2019103564-A1) hereinafter “PARK” in view of JHU HONGJHENG (KR-20210046750-A) hereinafter “JHU” (translation provided: citations herein refer to the translated document)
Regarding Claim 1 Park-JHU
Park discloses [Claim 1]. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, (Park, Abs, “An image decoding method that is performed by a decoding apparatus …”) comprising:
constructing a merge candidate list based on a prediction mode of a current block being a merge mode; (Park, [0070] “when the merge flag indicates that the merge mode is applied to the current block, the encoding device/decoding device constructs a merge candidate list with motion information of available neighboring blocks, and the merge index is on the merge candidate list.”)
Park does not explicitly disclose
constructing a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) candidate list based on a motion vector difference (MVD) available in a MMVD mode and a first merge candidate included in the merge candidate list.
reordering the MMVD candidate list.
deriving motion information of the current block based on the reordered MMVD candidate list.
However, in the same field of endeavor JHU discloses more explicitly the following:
constructing a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) candidate list based on a motion vector difference (MVD) available in a MMVD mode and a first merge candidate included in the merge candidate list; (JHU, [0008] “Determining a plurality of merge modes having motion vector difference (MMVD) indications of a block unit according to the bitstream; Selecting a plurality of MMVD prediction parameters of the block unit based on the plurality of MMVD indications and the selected candidate group; And reconstructing the block unit based on the plurality of MMVD prediction parameters.” [0099] “wherein each of the candidate groups includes one or more first MMVD candidate lists each having a plurality of first MMVD candidate parameters.” See also Claim 1,)
reordering the MMVD candidate list; (JHU, [0099] “each of the candidate groups may include one or more first MMVD candidate lists each having a plurality of first MMVD candidate parameters. …For example, difference distance candidates and difference direction candidates can be classified into candidate groups.”) and
deriving motion information of the current block based on the reordered MMVD candidate list. (JHU, [0058] “generate a motion vector corresponding to the selected frame candidate by selecting one of the vector candidates and one of the frame candidates based on the determined base candidate and adjusting the selected vector candidates.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Park with JHU to construct an MMVD candidate list based on motion vector difference (MMVD) and a merge candidate, reorder the MMVD candidate list, and derive motion information based on the reordered MMVD candidate list. as taught by JHU. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate these features, in order to “reduce the amount of bits for prediction and improving the overall coding efficiency.” (Park, [0013])
Note: The motivation set forth in the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claims 2, 5-13, and 15.
Regarding Claim 2 Park-JHU
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 2] The method of Claim 1, wherein the merge candidate list is constructed by including only a bidirectionally predicted merge candidate. (Park, [0199] “the pair prediction motion information for the merge candidate…may be used for reordering the merge candidate list and / or adding merge candidates of the merge candidate list…the cost for deriving the bipartite prediction motion information .. derived through the bidirectional matching method described above, and the cost for the merge candidate for the reordering process.”)
Regarding Claim 5 Park-JHU
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 5] The method of Claim 1, wherein the first merge candidate is a merge candidate represented by selection information among at least one merge candidate included in the merge candidate list, (Park, [0063] “The prediction information may include a merge index indicating a candidate block having an optimal motion vector selected from the candidate blocks included in the merge candidate list.”) and
wherein the selection information is obtained from a bitstream based on a number of merge candidates included in the merge candidate list being plural. (Park, [0074] “the encoding apparatus / decoding apparatus can construct a merge candidate list including merge candidates of the maximum number of candidates through the existing merge candidate list construction method.”)
Regarding Claim 6 Park-JHU
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 6] The method of Claim 5, wherein the merge candidate list is reordered, and wherein the selection information represents the first merge candidate among at least one merge candidate included in the reordered merge candidate list. ( Park, [0275] “The encoding apparatus may generate a merge index indicating the selected merge candidate among the merge candidates included in the modified merge candidate list ”
Regarding Claim 7 Park-JHU
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 7] The method of Claim 6, wherein the merge candidate list is reordered so that a bidirectionally predicted merge candidate has a higher rank than a unidirectionally predicted merge candidate. (Lin, [0033] “The prediction direction may comprise bi-direction, list-0 and list-1, and the priority order associated with the prediction direction corresponds to highest priority for the bi-direction, middle priority for the list-0 and lowest priority for the list-1”)
Regarding Claim 8 Park-JHU
Park-JHU-Liu discloses [Claim 8] The method of Claim 6, wherein the merge candidate list is reordered based on a template matching error of the at least one merge candidate included in the merge candidate list. (Park, [0089] “the modified merge candidate list may be derived through reordering and refinement of the merge candidates of the current block…..the cost for the merge candidates of the current block may be derived through the template matching, and the merge candidate lists may be rearranged based on the cost for the merge candidate, so that the optimal merge candidate for the current block The merge index may be assigned a smaller value.”)
Regarding Claim 9 Park-JHU
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 9] The method of Claim 1, wherein reordering the MMVD candidate list includes:
grouping MMVD candidates in the MMVD candidate list into a plurality of groups; (JHU, [0044] “the decoder module 222 may determine a plurality of candidate groups, each including a plurality of group parameters selected from the candidate parameters.” [0099] “For example, difference distance candidates and difference direction candidates can be classified into candidate groups.”) and
reordering the grouped MMVD candidates. (JHU, [0099] “each of the candidate groups may include one or more first MMVD candidate lists each having a plurality of first MMVD candidate parameters…For example, difference distance candidates and difference direction candidates can be classified into candidate groups.”)
Regarding Claim 10 Park-JHU
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 10] The method of Claim 9, wherein the MMVD candidates in the MMVD list are grouped based on at least one of a direction of the MVD and a size of the MVD. (JHU, [0153] “ each of the candidate groups may include a first MMVD candidate parameter of a difference size and a first MMVD candidate parameter of a difference direction. For example, the at least one first motion parameter is the difference size. In an implementation, each of the candidate groups may include first MMVD candidate parameters of a difference size.”
Regarding Claim 11 Park-JHU
` Park-JHU discloses [Claim 11] The method of Claim 9, wherein the grouped MMVD candidates are reordered for each group. (JHU, [0099] “each of the candidate groups may include one or more first MMVD candidate lists each having a plurality of first MMVD candidate parameters…For example, difference distance candidates and difference direction candidates can be classified into candidate groups.”)
Regarding Claim 12 Park-JHU
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 12] The method of Claim 11, wherein the motion information of the current block is derived based on a MMVD candidate represented by selection information among MMVD candidates belonging to a group represented by group information. (JHU discloses selecting a candidate group using a set flag and selecting MMVD predication parameters from an MMVD candidate list within in the selected group using a set index. (¶¶[0099], [0101], [0107]- [0110])
Regarding Claim 13 Park-JHU
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 13] An image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, (Park, [0010] “there is provided a video encoding method performed by an encoding apparatus. comprising:
The remaining limitations of independent claim 13 recite features that are substantially similar to those set forth in independent claim 1. Accordingly, the reasoning and analysis provided with respect to claim 1 apply equally to claim 13.
Claim 13 is directed to encoder rather than a decoder. It is well established in the art that an encoder and decoder perform complementary operations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to implement the corresponding operations in the encoder.
Regarding Claim 15 Park-JHU
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 15] A computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (JHU, [0021] “a computer system interface that enables a compliant video bitstream to be stored on or received from a storage device.”) generated by the image encoding method of Claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Park-JHU in view of Lin et al (US-20170310988-A1) hereinafter “Lin”.
Regarding Claim 3 Park-JHU-Lin
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 3] The method of Claim 1,
Park-JHU does not explicitly disclose wherein the merge candidate list is constructed by including a bidirectionally predicted merge candidate at a higher rank than a unidirectionally predicted merge candidate
However, in the same field of endeavor Lin discloses more explicitly the following:
wherein the merge candidate list is constructed by including a bidirectionally predicted merge candidate at a higher rank than a unidirectionally predicted merge candidate. (Lin, [0033] “The prediction direction may comprise bi-direction, list-0 and list-1, and the priority order associated with the prediction direction corresponds to highest priority for the bi-direction, middle priority for the list-0 and lowest priority for the list-1” [0034] “The prediction direction may comprise bi-direction and uni-direction, and
the first prediction direction is the bi-direction, while the second prediction direction is the uni-direction.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Park-JHU such that the merge candidate list is constructed by including a bidirectionally predicted merge candidate at a higher rank than a unidirectionally predicted merge candidate as taught by Lin. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature to “improve coding efficiency over the conventional MVP approach.” (Lin, [0028])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Park-JHU in view of LIU HONGBIN (WO-2020200237-A1) hereinafter “Liu”.
Regarding Claim 4 Park-JHU-Liu
Park-JHU discloses [Claim 4] The method of Claim 1, wherein based on a predetermined condition for a merge candidate included in the merge candidate list and a neighboring block being satisfied, the merge candidate list is constructed by including motion information of the neighboring block, (JHU,[0039] “ prediction unit 22222 may generate a plurality of base candidates for the block unit based on neighbor motion information…the base candidates are candidate parameters for selecting a base motion. In at least one implementation, the base candidate index may be an MMVD flag mmvd_cand_flag indicating the selected base candidate included in the prediction parameters. For example, base candidates may be generated …merge mode [0096] “generate a plurality of base candidates for the block unit based on neighbor motion information…the base candidates are candidate parameters for selecting a base motion. Each of the base candidates includes at least one frame candidate and at least one vector candidate.” See also Lin, [0029], [0031], and [0123]) and
Park-JHU does not explicitly disclose
wherein the predetermined condition includes at least one of bidirectional weight indices being different from each other, reference picture indices being different from each other, different interpolation filters being applied, or a difference between horizontal or vertical sizes of motion vectors exceeding a threshold value.
However, in the same field of endeavor Liu discloses more explicitly the following:
wherein the predetermined condition includes at least one of bidirectional weight indices being different from each other, reference picture indices being different from each other, different interpolation filters being applied, or a difference between horizontal or vertical sizes of motion vectors exceeding a threshold value. (Liu, [0291] “wherein the coding mode corresponds to a bi-direction optical flow (BDOF) in which the current block is bi-directionally predicted” [0105], “The method 1310 includes, at 1312, generating, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a coded representation of the video, a first motion candidate based on one or more motion candidates in a motion candidate list and one or more interpolation filters associated with the one or more motion candidates, wherein an interpolation filter is assigned to the first motion candidate according to a rule that depends on the one or more interpolation filters associated with the one or more motion candidates. The method 1310 further includes, at 1314, inserting the first motion candidate into the motion candidate list. The method 1310 further includes, at 1316, performing the conversion based on the motion candidate list”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combined teachings of Park-JHU such that the predetermined condition includes at least one of: different bidirectional weight indices, different reference picture indices different, different interpolation filters, or a difference between horizontal or vertical sizes of motion vectors exceeding a threshold value as taught by Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this feature to improve coding efficiency. (Liu, [0058])
Conclusion
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for
Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE whose telephone number is (703)756-1441. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Fr 8:30 am to 5:30 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, William Vaughn can be reached at (571)272-3922. 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.
/ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE/
Examiner, Art Unit 2481
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights