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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Such claim limitation(s) is/are “means for determining to decode”, “means for determining a value”, “means for determining the prediction candidate”, and “means for decoding the current block” in claim 31.
Review of the specification discloses the following:
-“means for determining to decode”, review of the specification describes a video decoder 300, see specification ¶247, that determines to decode a current block. ¶47 of the specification describes the decoder 300 is implemented as decoder circuitry such as microprocessors, digital signal processor, or application specific integrated circuits running instructions for software.
-“means for determining a value”, review of the specification describes a video decoder 300, see specification ¶247, that determines a value of an index to a prediction candidate. ¶47 of the specification describes the decoder 300 is implemented as decoder circuitry such as microprocessors, digital signal processor, or application specific integrated circuits running instructions for software.
-“means for determining the prediction candidate”, review of the specification describes a video decoder 300, see specification ¶247, that determines the prediction candidate and a first cost function. ¶47 of the specification describes the decoder 300 is implemented as decoder circuitry such as microprocessors, digital signal processor, or application specific integrated circuits running instructions for software.
-“means for decoding the current block”, review of the specification describes a video decoder 300, see specification ¶247, that decodes the current block. ¶47 of the specification describes the decoder 300 is implemented as decoder circuitry such as microprocessors, digital signal processor, or application specific integrated circuits running instructions for software.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1,3-5,7-8,13,15,17-19,21-22,27,29-31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK; Naeri et al. (US 20260095588 A1) in view of KIM; Dong-Hyun et al. (US 20260006208 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches,
A method of decoding video data, (¶81-103 and fig. 3, “decoding device 300” depicted in fig. 3) the method comprising:
determining to decode (¶85, “parse the bitstream to derive information” for image reconstruction) a current block of the video data (¶85, decoding information of a “block to be decoded” for image reconstruction) using an inter mode; (¶85,89-90,92, and fig. 3, “information on prediction” provided to a predictor 320 used to perform “inter prediction” applied to the current block based on “information on prediction”)
determining a value of an index (¶92, “motion information” predicted for a unit of a block including “motion vector and a reference picture index” for inter prediction) to a prediction candidate in a candidate list; (¶92 and 100, inter prediction by “inter predictor 332” may “configure a motion information candidate list” of the current block based on “flag or index information indicating which candidate is selected (used) to derive a motion vector”)
determining the prediction candidate (¶118 and 100, “inter prediction mode candidates” selected based on a “mode index” used in deriving a motion vector from “motion information candidate list”) based on the value of the index; (¶118 and 100, “inter prediction mode candidates” selected based on a “mode index” used in deriving a motion vector from “motion information candidate list” configured based on “index information indicating which candidate is selected (used) to derive a motion vector” of the current block) and
decoding the current block (¶93-94, “generate a reconstructed signal” such as a “reconstructed block”) based on the prediction candidate (¶92-94, generate a reconstructed block by adding “obtained residual signal to a prediction signal” derived based on information indicating “inter prediction mode for the current block” as received by candidate selection information) and the first cost function. (¶181-186 and 92, “motion information” of a MVP candidate for a “prediction direction” with corresponding “calculated cost” and “candidate index” that signals “received candidate selection information”)
But does not explicitly teach,
determining a first cost function of a plurality of cost functions based on the value of the index;
However, Kim teaches additionally,
determining a first cost function of a plurality of cost functions (¶2004 and 1991, “type of cost function” such as one of “bilateral matching cost and template matching cost”) based on the value of the index; (¶2004, “decoding of the motion information” such as “type of cost function”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim which signals the type of cost functions as pre-defined to the decoder-side. The cost function can be used to determine similarity between pieces of motion information such as in weights.
Regarding claim 3, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Park teaches additionally,
decoding the current block (¶92 and 182-186, decoding prediction block for a current block based on “received candidate selection information” signaled by a candidate index for a “position with the smallest cost”) comprises refining at least one motion vector associated with the prediction candidate (¶182-186, “refinement” of a reference block (or candidate) “may be performed on all or part of the candidates in a candidate list, or refinement may be performed on a specific candidate indicated by a candidate index” including MVP candidates) based on the first cost function. (¶182-186, “cost for a candidate” calculated for all or part of the candidates included in a candidate list)
Regarding claim 4, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Park teaches additionally,
decoding the current block (¶92 and 182-186, decoding prediction block for a current block based on “received candidate selection information” signaled by a candidate index for a “position with the smallest cost”) comprises reordering motion vector predictors in motion vector predictor list (¶182-186, “order of candidates” included in a candidate list indicated by the index for the MVP candidates “may be reordered based on a calculated cost”) based on the first cost function. (¶182-186, “cost for a candidate” calculated for all or part of the candidates included in a candidate list)
Regarding claim 5, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Park teaches additionally,
inter mode (¶176-177,157-159 and fig. 8, “motion vector difference of a candidate” used in multi-hypothesis prediction-based inter prediction which may “perform motion compensation based on a specific MVP” indicated by a candidate index) comprises a regular merge mode, a template matching merge mode, a bilateral matching merge mode, a geometric partitioning merge mode, an AMVP-merge mode, or an affine mode. (¶157-159 and 176-177, inter prediction based on “motion vector difference of a candidate” of a current block is a merge mode that includes “a regular merge mode”, “geometric partitioning mode (GPM)”, or “AMVP-merge mode”)
Regarding claim 7, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Park teaches additionally,
decoding the current block (¶164, “decoding device may configure a MVP candidate list” to generate a “prediction block” using motion information) comprises applying the first cost function for at least one candidate of the candidate list. (¶164 and 182-186, generate “final motion information” as a predictor using motion information of candidates with an “index of a MVP candidate” corresponding to a calculated “cost for a candidate” included in a candidate list)
Regarding claim 8, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Kim teaches additionally,
first cost function (¶976, “cost function”) comprises a sum of absolute differences (SAD), a sum of transformed absolute differences (SATD), a sum of squared error (SSE), a weighted-SAD, a mean-removal (MR)-SAD, a MR-SATD, or a mean-scaled-SATD. (¶976, cost function may be one or more of “the Sum of Absolute Differences (SAD), the Sum of Absolute Transformed Differences (SATD), the Mean-Removed Sum of Absolute Differences (MR-SAD), Mean Squared Error (MSE), and the Sum of Squared Error (SSE)”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim which signals the type of cost functions. The cost function can be used to determine similarity between pieces of motion information.
Regarding claim 13, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Park teaches additionally,
current block (¶92 and 99, “motion prediction for a current block” based on motion information) comprises a current subblock. (¶92 and 99, motion prediction for a “current block” based on motion information predicted in a unit of “a sub-block”)
Regarding claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 1.
Park teaches additionally,
A device for decoding video data, (¶81-103 and fig. 3, “decoding device 300” depicted in fig. 3) the device comprising:
one or more memories (¶82-83 and fig. 3, “memory 360”) configured to store the video data; (¶82-83 and fig. 3, “memory 360” includes a “decoded picture buffer (DPB)” as depicted in fig. 3) and
one or more processors implemented in circuitry (¶8382-83 and fig. 3, hardware component “decoder chipset or a processor” which implements “entropy decoder 310, residual processor 320, predictor 330, adder 340 and filter 350” depicted in fig. 3) and operably coupled to the one or more memories, (¶82-83, “hardware component may further include a memory 360” implemented in decoding device 300 as depicted in fig. 3) the one or more processors (¶82-83 and fig. 3, hardware component “decoder chipset or a processor” which executes modules/processes/functions “stored in a memory”) configured to:
Refer to rejection of claim 1 to teach the additional limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 3, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 3 to teach the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 4, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 4 to teach the limitations of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 5, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 5 to teach the limitations of claim 19.
Regarding claim 21, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 7, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 7 to teach the limitations of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 8, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 8 to teach the limitations of claim 22.
Regarding claim 27, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 13, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 13 to teach the limitations of claim 27.
Regarding claim 29, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 15,
Park teaches additionally,
a display (¶60-61 and fig. 3, “display unit”) configured to display decoded video data. (¶60-61 and fig. 3, “decoding device”, depicted in fig. 3, where “renderer may render a decoded video/image” that may be “displayed through a display unit”)
Regarding claim 30, it is the encoding method similar to decoding method claim 1.
Park teaches additionally,
A method of encoding video data, (¶62-63,116, fig. 2 and 5, “encoding device 200” encoding a video/image signal, as depicted in fig. 2, where “decoding device may perform an operation corresponding to an operation performed in the encoding device”)
Additionally, it should be noted that the encoding device of Park performs encoding of a video/image signal as encoded motion information and various information in the form of a bitstream input to a decoding device. The process used to generate the encoded information corresponds to a process similar to decoding of Park. Refer to claim 1 to teach the additional limitations of claim 30.
Regarding claim 31, it is the device means claim similar to device claim 15. Refer to rejection of claim 15 to teach the limitations of claim 31.
Claim(s) 2,16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK; Naeri et al. (US 20260095588 A1) in view of KIM; Dong-Hyun et al. (US 20260006208 A1) in view of Kajiwara; Hiroshi et al. (US 20060210176 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 2,
However, Kajiwara teaches additionally,
first cost function (¶198, “equation” based on “nonnegative integral value V”) is determined based on selecting (¶198, “prediction error e is decoded from the nonnegative integral value V by the following equations”) between the first cost function (¶198, prediction error e decoded by equation “e=-(V+1)/2”) and a second cost function (¶198, prediction error e decoded by equation “e=V/2”) based on a parity of the value of the index, (¶198, decoded “nonnegative integral value V” is an “odd number” or an “even number”) the first cost function being selected if the value of the index is odd (¶198, “When V is an odd number, e=-(V+1)/2”, which describes prediction error e is decoded from the nonnegative integral value V is an odd number) and the second cost function being selected if the value of the index is even. (¶198, “When V is an even number, e=V/2”, which describes prediction error e is decoded from the nonnegative integral value V is an even number)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim with the decoding of prediction error of Kajiwara which is based on a decoded integral value being odd or even. This allows for a process that allows for having a small number of appearance colors that is losslessly encoded at higher compression ratio.
Regarding claim 16, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 2, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 2 to teach the limitations of claim 16.
Claim(s) 6,20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK; Naeri et al. (US 20260095588 A1) in view of KIM; Dong-Hyun et al. (US 20260006208 A1) in view of Grois; Dan et al. (US 20220337883 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 5,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 6,
However, Grois teaches additionally,
Grois teaches additionally,
determining the first cost function (¶68, “cost function j”) is further based on a type of the inter mode. (¶68, cost function j evaluated for “all possible coding modes” including “inter-picture prediction modes” to determine the best coding mode)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim with the cost function of Grois which evaluates all possible coding modes including inter-picture prediction modes. This presents a main content compression goal that can be used to determine the best coding mode when condensing visual data and minimizing loss in terms of objective visual quality due to compression.
Regarding claim 20, dependent on claim 19, it is the device claim similar to method claim 6, dependent on claim 5. Refer to rejection of clam 6 to teach the limitations of claim 20.
Claim(s) 9,23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK; Naeri et al. (US 20260095588 A1) in view of KIM; Dong-Hyun et al. (US 20260006208 A1) in view of Jeon; Yong Joon et al. (US 20120147137 A1)
Regarding claim 9, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 9,
However, Jeon teaches additionally,
Jeon teaches additionally,
current block (¶89-92 and fig. 9, “macroblock to be currently coded”) comprises a block of a random access (RA) slice, an RA picture, (¶89-92 and fig. 9, macroblock to be currently coded corresponds to a “random access picture” which includes a “random access slice” used for “inter-view prediction”) a low delay B (LDB) slice, an LDB picture, a low delay P (LDP) slice, or an LDP picture.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim with the video streaming of Jeon which uses random access pictures for inter-view prediction. Using a random access picture can be used to realize efficient access.
Regarding claim 23, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 9, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 9 to teach the limitations of claim 23.
Claim(s) 10,24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK; Naeri et al. (US 20260095588 A1) in view of KIM; Dong-Hyun et al. (US 20260006208 A1) in view of CHEN; Lien-Fei et al. (US 20230104476 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 10,
However, Chen teaches additionally,
determining a plurality of subgroups of candidates in the candidate list, (¶164, “Merge candidates in the merge candidate list can further be divided into more than one group (or subgroups)”) each subgroup of the plurality of subgroups having a number of candidates (¶164, “merge candidate list can be divided into a plurality of groups based on a same number of merge candidates”) equal to a number of cost functions of the plurality of cost functions; (¶164-165, “TM procedure can be performed” for all merge candidates in the merge candidate list “to obtain the TM costs of the merge candidates” correspondingly divided into a plurality of groups based on a same number of merge candidates)
determining that the value of the index (¶154 and 164, “characteristic cost value of a subgroup”) is associated with a first candidate in one subgroup of the plurality of subgroups, index (¶154 and 164, “characteristic cost value of a subgroup” of the merge candidate list divided into “more than one group”) the first candidate of each subgroup of the plurality of subgroups being associated with the first cost function. (¶154 and 164, “For each subgroup” of the divided merge candidate list “reordered in the merge candidate list” based on a characteristic cost value for a merge candidate “of a subgroup being a minimum TM cost of the subgroup”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim with the merge candidate list division of Chen which can evenly divide candidates into subgroups. This merge mode technique for inter-prediction can improve coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 24, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 10, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 10 to teach the limitations of claim 24.
Claim(s) 11,25 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK; Naeri et al. (US 20260095588 A1) in view of KIM; Dong-Hyun et al. (US 20260006208 A1) in view of NAM; Jung Hak et al. (US 20250272953 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 11,
However, Nam teaches additionally,
determining the first cost function (¶185 and Table 10-11, “a cost function may be derived” based on “sps_aml_cost_function_idx” information (index) about a cost function used” as disclosed in Tables 10 and 11) comprises looking up the value of the index in a mapping table, (¶185-186 and Table 11, sps_aml_cost_function_idx “index and the table in Table 11” predefining a cost function in image decoding) the mapping table mapping respective merge indexes to corresponding cost functions of the plurality of cost functions. (¶185 and Table 11, “sps_aml_cost_function_idx may be information (index) about a cost function used” for reordering a “merge candidate list” such that index “0” corresponds with “SAD”, index “1” corresponds with “SSE”, index “2” corresponds with “MR-SAD”, and index “3” corresponds to “HAD” as disclosed in Table 11)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim with the index of Nam which corresponds with a table arranged indexes to a cost function. This allows for high level transmission of cost function such as in the picture parameter set, picture header, or in the sequence parameter set (SPS) as described in the table.
Regarding claim 25, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 11, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 11 to teach the limitations of claim 25.
Claim(s) 12,26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK; Naeri et al. (US 20260095588 A1) in view of KIM; Dong-Hyun et al. (US 20260006208 A1) in view of MORIGAMI; YOSHITAKA (US 20220166980 A1) in view of in view of NAM; Jung Hak et al. (US 20250272953 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 12,
However, Morigami teaches additionally,
selecting between the first cost function and a second cost function (¶87, “cost function value for each prediction block size”) based on a block size of the current block, (¶87, “selects, as an optimum inter prediction mode, a prediction block size having the smallest calculated cost function value”) the first cost function being selected if the block size of the current block is a first size (¶87, selects, “a prediction block size having the smallest calculated cost function value”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim with the motion prediction compensation of Morigami according to a prediction block size. This allows for choosing a prediction block size with the best coding efficiency.
Nam teaches additionally,
the second cost function being selected (¶185 and Table 10-11, “a cost function may be derived” based on “sps_aml_cost_function_idx” information (index)) if the value of the index is a second size. (¶185 and Table 10-11, a cost function may be derived according to “sps_aml_ cost_function_idx” information (index) “about a cost function” where index “0” corresponds with “SAD”, index “1” corresponds with “SSE”, index “2” corresponds with “MR-SAD”, and index “3” corresponds to “HAD” as disclosed in Table 11)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim with the motion prediction compensation of Morigami with the index of Nam which corresponds indexes to a cost function. This allows for high level transmission of cost function such as in the picture parameter set, picture header, or in the sequence parameter set (SPS) as described in the table.
Regarding claim 26, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 12, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of clam 12 to teach the limitations of claim 26.
Claim(s) 14,28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK; Naeri et al. (US 20260095588 A1) in view of KIM; Dong-Hyun et al. (US 20260006208 A1) in view of CHEN; Lien-Fei et al. (US 20230104476 A1) view of in view of NAM; Jung Hak et al. (US 20250272953 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Park with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Park teaches additionally,
prediction candidate is a first prediction candidate, (¶120, decoding device may use a “motion vector of a mvp candidate selected among the motion vector predictor (mvp) candidates” included in the (A)MVP candidate list as a mvp of the current block) wherein the candidate list is a first candidate list, (¶120, “the (A)MVP candidate list”) wherein the current block is a first current block (¶120 and 96, (A)MVP mode is applied to “the current block” from which “motion information in a current picture is derived”)
But does not explicitly teach,
wherein the first prediction candidate is in a first portion of the first candidate list, the method further comprising:
determining to code a second current block of the video data using the inter mode;
determining a value of an index to a second prediction candidate in a second candidate list;
determining that the second prediction candidate is in a second portion of the second candidate list;
determining, based on the second prediction candidate being in the second portion of the second candidate list, a second cost function; and
decoding the current block based on the second cost function.
However, Chen teaches additionally,
wherein the first prediction candidate (¶164, “merge candidates”) is in a first portion of the first candidate list, (¶164, merge candidates in the “merge candidate list” that is “divided into a plurality of groups” including a “second group of the merge candidates, such as the temporal MV predictors from the collocated blocks of the current block”) the method further comprising:
determining that the second prediction candidate (¶164-166, “determining according to a corresponding TM cost” that the third group includes a merge candidate with “a smallest TM cost” of the first, second, and third groups of merge candidates) is in a second portion of the second candidate list; (¶166, determining when a “smallest TM cost of a third group” corresponds to the smallest TC cost of the merge candidates in the merge candidate list divided into three groups)
determining, based on the second prediction candidate being in the second portion of the second candidate list, (¶166, “a smallest TM cost of a third group is less than a smallest TM cost of a second group, and a smallest TM cost of the second group is less than a smallest TM cost of a first group”) a second cost function; (¶166, third group is placed in the merge candidate list at first of the three groups “reordered in an ascending order based on the smallest TM costs”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim with the merge candidate list division of Chen which can evenly divide candidates into subgroups. This merge mode technique for inter-prediction can improve coding efficiency.
Nam teaches additionally,
determining to code a second current block of the video data using the inter mode; (¶104, prediction unit may determining whether “inter prediction is applied to the current block based on the information on the prediction output”)
determining a value of an index to a second prediction candidate (¶107,112, and 126, “flag or index information indicating which candidate is selected (used)” for the current block may be signaled, such as a “merge index” among merge candidates in the merge candidate list) in a second candidate list; (¶126 and 145, select “merge candidates included in the merge candidate list” from a merge candidate list “divided into one or more subgroups” after a merge candidate list is constructed)
decoding the current block based on the second cost function. (¶183-186,169, and 107, reordered “merge candidates based on template matching” cost using “cost function” indicated/derived by “sps_aml_cost_function_idx may be information (index)” to signal for “correcting a motion vector in a decoder” based on the template matching cost to “derive a predicted block for the current block”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image decoding method of Park with the cost function motion information of Kim with the merge candidate list division of Chen with the index of Nam which corresponds indexes as a form of template matching determination. This disclosure results in image coding efficiency based on template matching cost to be improved by enabling more accurate calculations.
Regarding claim 28, dependent on claim 15, it is the device claim similar to method claim 14, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 14 to teach the limitations of claim 28.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-8PM EST.
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, Joseph G. Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights