DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 04/18/2025, where Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 04/18/2025 and 07/02/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
4. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner’s notes
5. Upon examination of independent claim 20 (“A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises:”), this is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by any prior art which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream. Please see details below with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Specification
6. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Please include more descriptive terms in the title, including DMVR, etc. to better reflect the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
7. Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 recites “wherein a direction making a major impact on the target prediction is determined”. Recommend re-wording the foregoing according to how a major impact is defined as shown for e.g. in ¶0139 of the filed specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang US 2022/0201315 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, where Zhang discloses a multi-pass decoder-side motion vector refinement process (e.g. fig. 12). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 1, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Zhang teaches and/or suggests “A method for video processing, comprising: obtaining, for a first conversion between a first video block of a video and a bitstream of the video [See encoder 200 in fig. 3], a set of motion vectors for the first video block [See for e.g. ¶0062-¶0063, ¶0098 regarding having one or more motion vectors], the first video block being coded with a subblock-based coding tool [Given Zhang teaches sub-block based passes in a multi-pass DMVR approach (e.g. ¶0006 and fig. 12), a subblock-based coding tool must be employed.]; applying a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process on the set of motion vectors [See fig. 12 regarding a three-pass DMVR technique]; and performing the first conversion based on the applying.” [See the encoder in Fig. 3]
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhnag further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the subblock-based coding tool comprises a subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction (SbTMVP) mode or an affine mode [Recognizing the “or” condition, please see ¶0065 for example with respect to an affine mode], and/or wherein the DMVR process may comprise one of the following [Given the ‘and/or’ (emphasis added) condition that precedes “wherein the DMVR process may comprise…”, the limitations that follow do not necessarily have to be realized. See Zhang’s DMVR approach in fig. 12]: a prediction unit (PU) level DMVR process which outputs a PU based motion offset [See MV_offsets in ¶0169 with reference to fig. 10 in Zhang], a coding unit (CU) level DMVR process which outputs a CU based motion offset [See MV_offsets in ¶0169 with reference to fig. 10 in Zhang], a sub-PU level DMVR process which outputs a sub-PU based motion offset [See ¶0192 of Zhang with respect to a delta MV (Δhor, Δver) for each sub-block], a sub-CU level DMVR process which outputs a sub-CU based motion offset [See ¶0192 of Zhang with respect to a delta MV (Δhor, Δver) for each sub-block]. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests the “multi-pass DMVR process” as claimed [Please refer to the three-pass DMVR technique in Zhang (fig. 12)]
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein a motion offset is added to each motion vector for each of subblocks of the first video block.” [See e.g. ¶0192 with respect to delta MVs (i.e. offsets) of each sub-block. As indicated in ¶0169, MV_offsets can be added to each ‘initial’ motion vector yielding a refined motion vector]
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein after PU or CU level reference blocks are obtained, subblock motion vectors are determined [See fig. 12 where motion vectors for the sub-areas are determined after obtaining the PU or CU level reference blocks] and a subblock-based motion compensation is performed by adding the motion offset to each motion vector for each of subblocks of the first video block [Zhang teaches refining the MV for each sub-block via DMVR, where corresponding delta MVs (i.e. offsets) can be obtained (¶0192). Although not explicit for sub-blocks, Zhang does show how obtained offsets can be added to the initial MV (e.g. ¶0169-¶0170 and ¶0215). This process is also depicted in figs. 8A-8B and 10. As such, applying this to all sub-blocks would be within the level of skill in the art], and/or wherein a first motion offset is added to motion vectors for all subblocks of the first video block that are in a first prediction direction [See figs. 8A-8B and 10 with respect to the two directions as shown], and/or wherein a second motion offset is added to motion vectors for all subblocks of the first video block that are in a second prediction direction different from the first prediction direction [See figs. 8A-8B and 10 with respect to the two directions as shown], and the second motion offset is opposite to the first motion offset [The motion offsets depicted in figs. 8B and 10 are in opposite directions], and/or wherein the motion offset is dependent on a step of the DMVR process.” [See ¶0168-¶0170 regarding Zhang’s DMVR process, where the MV_offsets are shown to depend on said process]
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein motion vectors used to obtain two PU or CU level reference blocks for the first video block are refined by adding a motion offset to the motion vectors.” [See figs. 10 and 13 of Zhang]
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5 above. Also note ¶0062 regarding using the motion vectors to generate the prediction block, i.e. “before the two PU or CU level reference blocks are obtained”
Regarding claim 16, Liu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the first conversion includes encoding the first video block into the bitstream.” [See the encoder of fig. 3]
Regarding claim 17, Liu teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the first conversion includes decoding the first video block from the bitstream.” [See the decoder 300 in fig. 4]
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software, please see ¶0047 of Zhang with reference to figs. 3-4 for support.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software, please see ¶0047 of Zhang with reference to figs. 3-4 for support.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software, please see ¶0047 of Zhang with reference to figs. 3-4 for support.
Claim 20 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Regunathan et al. US 9,571,840 B2, hereinafter referred to as Regunathan, since this is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream (MPEP §2113). For the reasons previously presented, the storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 15 merely serve as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Regunathan below which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Regarding claim 20, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Regunathan discloses and/or suggests “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises [See claim 33 which recites a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon encoded data in a bitstream for video]: obtaining a set of motion vectors for a current video block of the video, the current video block being coded with a subblock-based coding tool; applying a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) process on the set of motion vectors; and generating the bitstream based on the applying.” [The aforementioned limitation is not given patentable weight for the reasons previously discussed. See MPEP §2111.05(III)]
To help advance prosecution, it is recommended that (“A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises:”) be rewritten to also include instructions executed by a processor which cause the processor to perform the method that generates the bitstream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Urban et al WO 2020/183243 A1, hereinafter referred to as Urban.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the set of motion vectors are bi-directional coded [See the motion vectors in for e.g. figs. 8A-8B and 10] and/or wherein the set of motion vectors meet a DMVR condition [Given the BRI of “DMVR condition”, see Zhang’s MV difference mirroring rule (e.g. ¶0169) as depicted in fig. 8B, which can be construed as a DMVR condition. Also please note ¶0177], and/or wherein a first motion vector in the set of motion vectors points to a forward reference picture for a current picture comprising the first video block, a second motion vector in the set of motion vectors points to a backward reference picture for the current picture [Figs. 8A-8B and 10], and a picture order count (POC) distance between the forward reference picture and the current picture is the same as a POC distance between the current picture and the backward reference picture [See same figures above with respect to time distances based on POC values (e.g. ¶0150). Although the time distances shown are not the same, having equal distances or any variation thereof, would be within the level of skill in the art. Also refer to ¶0164 where mirroring of motion vectors takes place regardless of the time distances, thus suggesting any distances are possible. See Urban below for more explicit support.], and/or wherein the set of motion vectors is used to obtain a first CU level reference block in a forward reference picture for a current picture comprising the first video block and a second CU level reference block in a backward reference picture for the current picture [See figs. 8A-8B and 10 of Zhang], and/or wherein the set of motion vectors comprises subblock-based motion vectors for determining a prediction of the first video block [Fig. 12 depicts sub-block based motion vectors in the 2nd and 3rd passes], and/or wherein a subblock-based motion compensation is performed to generate two predictions for the first video block in two prediction directions [Please refer to Zhang’s multi-pass DMVR technique in fig. 12], and a bilateral matching cost is determined as a distortion between the two predictions.” [See ¶0133 and ¶0162 with respect to bilateral matching and deriving the final motion vector based on a minimum bilateral matching cost] Although Zhang seems to suggest having the same time distances as claimed, the work of Urban from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest this feature [See pg. 9 lines 30-31 of Urban where POC differences from both reference pictures to the current picture are the same] Given Urban’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding methods of Zhang related to decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR), to add the teachings of Urban as above that allow for combining separate coding tools (e.g. LIC, WP, BCW, and DMVR) which may involve adaptations of at least one of the tools to obtain improved or optimal performance (e.g. pg. 16 lines 1-4).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Li et al. US 2019/0387245 A1, hereinafter referred to as Li.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Liu further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising: obtaining, for a second conversion between a second video block of a video and a bitstream of the video [Although a ‘second’ conversion involving a ‘second’ video block is not explicit in Zhang, Zhang’s conversion of a current block in fig. 3 could apply to any block (e.g. 2nd block)], a motion-compensated prediction of the second video block [See motion compensation in fig. 3], the second video block being coded with an intra template matching mode or an intra block copy (IBC) mode; applying a sample refinement process on the motion-compensated prediction; and performing the second conversion based on the applying.” [Zhang does not appear to address the aforementioned limitations. See Li below for support] Since Zhang does not address the limitations related to an intra template matching mode or an intra block copy (IBC) mode, the work of Li from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “the second video block being coded with an intra template matching mode or an intra block copy (IBC) mode; applying a sample refinement process on the motion-compensated prediction; and performing the second conversion based on the applying.” [See ¶0066 with reference to the flow diagram of motion compensation for a block/ This can apply to mixtures of “intra block copy” techniques with traditional reference picture based motion compensation, and so forth. Conversions can be performed via the decoder and encoder of figs. 3 and 4, respectively] Given Li’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding methods of Zhang related to decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR), to add the teachings of Li as above for improving memory access bandwidth in a video encoder/decoder employing bi-predicted motion vector refinement (¶0010).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang, and Li teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Recognizing the “and/or” conditions that follow, Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the same parameters for the sample refinement process are used for all samples to be refined [Given the BRI of “parameters”, see for e.g. ¶0095 with respect to the multiple encoding passes shown in fig. 12. Also the number of passes in the MV refinement appears to be the same for each sub-block of a coding block which may be construed as a parameter], or wherein different parameters for the sample refinement process are used for different samples to be refined [The total number of passes may skip one or more passes (e.g. ¶0207). Also note ¶0212 where different sub-areas of a block may receive N passes or M passes, where M < N], or wherein parameters for the sample refinement process are dependent on a position of a sample to be refined [Zhang’s techniques depend on sample positions (e.g. ¶0176 and ¶0280)], or wherein parameters for the sample refinement process are dependent on a cost metric between samples neighboring to the second video block and samples neighboring to a further video block different from the second video block.” [0279 for example show Zhang’s refinement process depends on a cost function]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Li, and in further view of Urban.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang and Li teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Recognizing the “and/or” conditions below, Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein a mean-removal based cost metric is used as a criterion for determining a motion vector or a block vector for the second video block” [The filed specification (pg. 71 lines 19-30) discloses use of the MRSAD metric, however, Zhang and Li do not address this. See Urban below for support]. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “and/or wherein the sample refinement process is applied on all samples within the second video block [See ¶0198 with reference to fig. 12 (e.g. a refined MV is generated for each sub-block of sub-blocks 1208A-1208H], and/or wherein the sample refinement process is applied on a part of samples within the second video block.” [¶0199 shows for example the sub-block based second pass may be applied to one of the two sub-blocks (e.g. 1204A or 1204B)]. Further, Liu also appears to suggest “and/or wherein the second video block is a screen-content video block or a camera-captured-content video block” [A video source would also be within the level of skill in the art as indicated in ¶0034 and ¶0036 of Zhang where a source of raw video data may be a video camera] Regarding the MRSAD metric, the work of Urban from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein a mean-removal based cost metric is used as a criterion for determining a motion vector or a block vector for the second video block” [See e.g. pg. 26 lines 10-16] Given Urban’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding methods of Zhang and Li related to motion vector refinement, to add the teachings of Urban as above that allow for combining separate coding tools (e.g. LIC, WP, BCW, and DMVR) which may involve adaptations of at least one of the tools to obtain improved or optimal performance (e.g. pg. 16 lines 1-4).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Li, and in further view of Zhang et al. et al. US 2020/0252619 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang 619.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang and Li teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang and Li however do not appear to address the features of claim 11. On the other hand and recognizing the ‘or’ conditions that follow, the work of Zhang 619 from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein a prediction of the second video block is generated by blending a prediction of the second video block generated based on a linear model top (LM-T) mode and a prediction of the second video block generated based on a linear model left (LM-L) mode [Given the BRI of the foregoing limitation, see for e.g. figs. 23A-23B regarding linear models applied to both top and left neighboring samples of a current block, which can be construed as any block. Also please note ¶0281-¶0285 with respect to a weighted sum of predictions for yielding the final prediction], or wherein a prediction of the second video block for an LM-TL mode is generated by blending a prediction of the second video block generated based on above neighboring samples of the second video block and a prediction of the second video block generated based on left neighboring samples of the second video block [Same citations as above as they also appear to describe a top-left position], or wherein a prediction of the second video block for an LIC mode is generated by blending an LIC prediction of the second video block generated based on above neighboring samples of the second video block and an LIC prediction of the second video block generated based on left neighboring samples of the second video block.” [Regarding LIC, see e.g. ¶0095-¶0097] Although not related to DMVR, the teachings of Zhang 619 are deemed relevant since they disclose linear models employed in video coding. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding methods of Zhang and Li, to add the teachings of Zhang 619 as above for providing chroma-to-luma prediction approach that has a well-balanced trade-off between complexity and compression efficiency improvement (e.g. ¶0070).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang, Li, and Zhang 619 teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang and Li however do not appear to address the features of claim 12. On the other hand and recognizing the ‘or’ conditions that follow, the work of Zhang 619 from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein a target prediction of the second video block is generated by blending a first prediction of the second video block generated based on neighboring samples in a first direction and a second prediction of the second video block generated based on neighboring samples in a second direction.” [Given the BRI of the foregoing limitation, see for e.g. figs. 23A-23B regarding linear models applied to both top and left neighboring samples of a current block, which can be construed as any block. First and second directions can be considered for e.g. top and left samples, respectively. Also note ¶0281-¶0285 with respect to a weighted sum of predictions for yielding the final prediction] The motivation for combining Zhang, Li, and Zhang 619 has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Li, in further view of Zhang 619, and in further view of Chuang et al. US 2019/0215521 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chuang.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang, Li, and Zhang 619 teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 12, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang, and Li however do not appear to address the features of claim 13. On the other hand and recognizing the ‘or’ conditions that follow, the work of Zhang 619 from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein a direction making a major impact on the target prediction is determined [Based on for e.g. fig. 23B, the CCLM may only use left-neighboring samples or above-neighboring samples. This is understood to mean a decision must have been made to determine which neighboring samples to use to yield the desired results], or wherein whether the target prediction is mostly from the first prediction or the second prediction is determined [Please note ¶0281-¶0296 with respect to a weighted sum of predictions for yielding the final prediction. The corresponding weights of each prediction corresponding to both top and left neighboring samples will indicate which is more/less important (e.g. ¶0292-¶0293 show W1 > W2 or W2 > W1)], or wherein blending weights of the first prediction and the second prediction are uniform [¶0294 shows W1=W2], or wherein a first weight is assigned to all samples of the first prediction, and a second weight is assigned to all samples of the second prediction, [In ¶0286, weight W1 is applied to all pixels (x, y) for one prediction, while weight W2 is applied to all pixels (x, y) for the other prediction] The motivation for combining Liu, Zhang, Li, and Zhang 619 has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above. However, Zhang 619 does not appear to teach sample-based blending weights. Chuang on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “or wherein blending weights of the first prediction and the second prediction are sample-based.” [See for e.g. figs. 11 and 14A-14B, where the weights depicted vary according to different regions of the block. As such, the weights for samples across regions can be construed as sample-based.] Although related to decoder side intra prediction derivation (DIMD), Chuang’s teachings are deemed relevant since they describe various approaches for combining predictors based on both uniform and position-dependent blending weights over a current block (e.g. ¶0014). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding methods of Zhang, Li, and Zhang 619, to add the teachings of Chuang as above for providing joint DIMD intra prediction techniques to help improve coding performance of video coding systems (e.g. ¶0046).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Zhang, in view of Zhang et al. US 2020/0413044 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang 044.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Zhang teaches a conversion between a video block and a bitstream of video (e.g. figs. 3 and 4), which can pertain to any block, Zhang does not appear to address the remaining features of claim 14. As such, the work of Zhang 044 from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “further comprising: obtaining, for a third conversion between a third video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a plurality of merge candidates for the third video block; applying a pruning check on the plurality of merge candidates by checking first coding information and motion information of the plurality of merge candidates, the first coding information being different from the motion information; and performing the third conversion based on the applying.” [Given the BRI of “coding information”, ¶0366 describes a pruning process in merge candidate list construction. Said process involves checking whether reference pictures/reference picture indices (here construed as “coding information”) are the same and also whether motion vector differences (construed as motion information) are within a range or are identical. Although Zhang 044 does not explicitly refer to a conversion of a “third block”, Zhang 044, like Zhang, does teach conversion between a video block and a bitstream representation of said block, which can pertain to any block] Given the teachings of Zhang 044 also address DMVR (¶0217-¶0220), they are deemed relevant with respect to the aforementioned features. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding methods of Zhang related to the use of motion compensation in video coding and decoding, to add the teachings of Zhang 044 as above for providing a candidate list construction process to facilitate video coding and decoding particularly in light of the increased demand for bandwidth and digital video usage (e.g. ¶0003).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang and Zhang 044 teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 14, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Recognizing the “or” conditions in the limitations below, only one of the disclosed features is required. As such, Liu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the first coding information comprises at least one of the following: a bi-prediction with coding unit-level weight (BCW) index, or an LIC flag, or wherein the plurality of merge candidates comprises a first merge candidate and a second merge candidate, if a motion vector of the first merge candidate is the same as the second merge candidate and the first coding information of the first merge candidate is different from the second merge candidate, the first merge candidate is determined as being different from the second merge candidate during the pruning check, or wherein the plurality of merge candidates comprises a first merge candidate and a second merge candidate, if a motion vector of the first merge candidate is similar to the second merge candidate and the first coding information of the first merge candidate is not similar to the second merge candidate, the first merge candidate is determined as being not similar to the second merge candidate during the pruning check, or wherein the plurality of merge candidates are comprised in one of the following: [only one of the following limitations is required] a regular merge list [See for e.g. ¶0156 regarding regular merge mode], a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) based merge list, a template matching (TM) based merge list [See for e.g. ¶0156 regarding TM prediction being a special merge mode], a bilateral matching (BM) based merge list [See ¶0162 regarding bilateral matching prediction], a DMVR based merge list [See ¶0166], an affine DMVR merge list [In the context of Zhang’s DMVR, prediction processing includes an affine unit (¶0116)], a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) merge list [See CIIP mode in ¶0177], a CIIP TM merge list, a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) merge list, a GPM TM merge list, an SbTMVP merge list, or an SbTMVP TM merge list.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO 892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, 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 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights