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 § 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al. (US 2019/0110058 A1, referred to herein as “Chien”) in view of Abe et al. (WO 2019031136 A1, referred to herein as “Abe”).
Regarding claim 1, Chien discloses: A method, comprising:
obtaining information for a current video block from a neighboring video block before the information is refined for use in the neighboring video block (Chien: Fig. 7, paragraph [0115], disclosing use of a current block and a reference picture to derive motion information based on a neighboring block);
refining the information for use with the current video block (Chien: paragraph [0119] and [0193], disclosing refinement of candidate motion vectors);
…using a final motion vector when a coding unit uses a motion vector predictor from a coding unit within a current coding tree unit (Chien: Figs. 10 and 11, paragraphs [0134] and [0136], disclosing use of template matching from a neighboring block to derive motion information; paragraphs [0169]-[0170], disclosing that the coding units may be associated with coding tree units); and
encoding the current video block using the refined information (Chien: Fig. 16, paragraph [0194], disclosing encoding of the current block using refined motion vector information).
Chien does not explicitly disclose: using a motion vector predictor from a neighboring coding unit when that coding unit is outside a current coding tree unit.
However, Abe discloses: using a motion vector predictor from a neighboring coding unit when that coding unit is outside a current coding tree unit (Abe: Figs. 19A-B, page 29, lines 47-60, disclosing that an adjacent neighboring coding unit outside the coding tree unit may be referred when determining the motion vector information).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the neighboring coding tree unit of Abe in the method of Chien.
One would have been motivated to modify Chien in this manner in order to improve processing time associated with motion vector prediction (Abe: page 29, lines 58-60 and page 30, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the information comprises a motion vector predictor, refining the information comprises frame rate up conversion to generate a motion vector, and encoding comprises using the motion vector for the current video block (Chien: paragraph [0085], disclosing motion vector predictors; paragraphs [0097] and [0130], disclosing use of frame rate up-conversion associated with motion vector matching; Fig. 16, paragraph [0194], disclosing encoding of the motion vector information for the current block).
Regarding claim 3, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 2, wherein refining the information is based on template matching (Chien: paragraph [0147], disclosing use of template matching associated with FRUC).
Regarding claim 4, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 3, wherein the template matching is confined to a coding tree unit containing the current video block (Chien: Figs. 10 and 11, paragraphs [0134] and [0136], disclosing use of template matching from a neighboring block to derive motion information; paragraphs [0169]-[0170], disclosing that the coding units may be associated with a coding tree unit).
Regarding claim 5, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein a motion vector predictor is checked to see whether it is in a list of candidates before adding it to the list (Chien: paragraphs [0118] and [0131], disclosing generation and checking of a list of candidate motion vectors).
Regarding claim 6, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein syntax is used to signal the refining (Chien: paragraph [0051], disclosing use of syntax that describes characteristics and/or processing of blocks and other coding units—e.g., including refining).
Regarding claim 7, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the refining comprises illumination compensation (Chien: Fig. 11, paragraph [0136], disclosing use of illumination compensation).
Regarding claim 8, Chien and Abe disclose: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1 (Chien: paragraph [0198], disclosing implementation via stored instructions executed by one or more processors).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. (Note that Chien discloses implementation via memory and processor in paragraphs [0198]-[0200]).
Regarding claim 10, Chien discloses: A method, comprising:
obtaining information for a current video block from a reconstructed neighboring video block before the information is refined for use in the neighboring video block (Chien: Fig. 7, paragraph [0115], disclosing use of a current block and a reference picture to derive motion information based on a neighboring block; Fig. 14, paragraph [0186], disclosing use of reconstructed blocks in decoding);
refining the information for use with the current video block (Chien: paragraph [0119] and [0193], disclosing refinement of candidate motion vectors);
…using a final motion vector when a coding unit uses a motion vector predictor from a coding unit within a current coding tree unit (Chien: Figs. 10 and 11, paragraphs [0134] and [0136], disclosing use of template matching from a neighboring block to derive motion information; paragraphs [0169]-[0170], disclosing that the coding units may be associated with coding tree units); and
decoding the current video block using the refined information (Chien: Fig. 15, paragraph [0193], disclosing decoding the video based on refined motioned motion vector information).
Chien does not explicitly disclose: using a motion vector predictor from a neighboring coding unit when that coding unit is outside a current coding tree unit.
However, Abe discloses: using a motion vector predictor from a neighboring coding unit when that coding unit is outside a current coding tree unit (Abe: Figs. 19A-B, page 29, lines 47-60, disclosing that an adjacent neighboring coding unit outside the coding tree unit may be referred when determining the motion vector information).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the neighboring coding tree unit of Abe in the method of Chien.
One would have been motivated to modify Chien in this manner in order to improve processing time associated with motion vector prediction (Abe: page 29, lines 58-60 and page 30, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 10, wherein the information comprises a motion vector predictor, refining the information comprises frame rate up conversion to generate a motion vector, and decoding comprises using the motion vector for the current video block (Chien: paragraph [0085], disclosing motion vector predictors; paragraphs [0097] and [0130], disclosing use of frame rate up-conversion associated with motion vector matching; Fig. 16, paragraph [0194], disclosing encoding of the motion vector information for the current block).
Regarding claim 12, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 11, wherein refining the information is based on template matching (Chien: paragraph [0147], disclosing use of template matching associated with FRUC).
Regarding claim 13, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 12, wherein the template matching is confined to a coding tree unit containing the current video block (Chien: Figs. 10 and 11, paragraphs [0134] and [0136], disclosing use of template matching from a neighboring block to derive motion information; paragraphs [0169]-[0170], disclosing that the coding units may be associated with a coding tree unit).
Regarding claim 14, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 10, wherein a motion vector predictor is checked to see whether it is in a list of candidates before adding it to the list (Chien: paragraphs [0118] and [0131], disclosing generation and checking of a list of candidate motion vectors).
Regarding claim 15, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 10, wherein syntax is used to signal the refining (Chien: paragraph [0051], disclosing use of syntax that describes characteristics and/or processing of blocks and other coding units—e.g., including refining).
Regarding claim 16, Chien and Abe disclose: The method of claim 10, wherein the refining comprises illumination compensation (Chien: Fig. 11, paragraph [0136], disclosing use of illumination compensation).
Regarding claim 17, Chien and Abe disclose: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 10 (Chien: paragraph [0198], disclosing implementation via stored instructions executed by one or more processors).
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 10, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. (Note that Chien discloses implementation via memory and processor in paragraphs [0198]-[0200]).
Regarding claim 19, Chien and Abe disclose: The apparatus of claim 18, further comprising at least one of:
an antenna configured to receive a signal over the air, the signal including the current video block;
a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the current video block; or
a display configured to display an output comprising the decoded current video block (Chien: paragraphs [0044] and [0051], disclosing a display for displaying decoded video).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571) 270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights