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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “all resolutions” in claims 1-20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “all resolutions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how many resolutions are traversed in the steps following the resolution.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1-20 recite the broad recitation “all resolutions”, and the claims also recite a second rate-distortion cost associated with “another resolution different from the first resolution” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Applicant is required to amend the claims to more particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Puri et al. (US 20250071317 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Puri et al. teaches a computer device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and capable of running on the processor, wherein the computer program upon execution by the processor causes the processor to implement operations (Paragraph 86) comprising:
performing prediction at a first resolution for a current coding unit, and determining a rate-distortion cost corresponding to the first resolution as a current best rate-distortion cost (Paragraph 181); and
performing prediction at another resolution different from the first resolution according to following steps, until all resolutions are traversed (Paragraph 181):
constructing a prediction motion vector list of a current traversal resolution based on a reference image (Paragraph 181);
determining a start search point of the current traversal resolution based on the prediction motion vector list, and determining a first rate-distortion cost of the start search point (Paragraph 141; Paragraph 148; Paragraph 151; Paragraphs 178-181);
when the first rate-distortion cost and the current best rate-distortion cost meet a preset condition, skipping motion estimation and motion compensation at the current traversal resolution, and using a prediction motion vector as an actual motion vector to calculate a second rate-distortion cost of the current traversal resolution (Paragraph 141; Paragraph 148-151; Paragraphs 178-181); and
updating the current best rate-distortion cost based on the second rate-distortion cost and the current best rate-distortion cost, and performing prediction at a next resolution (Paragraph 141; Paragraph 148-151; Paragraphs 178-181).
Regarding Claim 10, Puri et al teaches the computer device according to claim 9, wherein the determining a start search point of the current traversal resolution based on the prediction motion vector list comprises: determining a best prediction motion vector from the prediction motion vector list based on a rate-distortion cost; and using the best prediction motion vector as the start search point (Paragraph 141; Paragraph 148-151; Paragraphs 178-181).
Regarding Claim 11, Puri et al teaches the computer device according to claim 10, wherein the preset condition comprises: the first rate-distortion cost is greater than N times the current best rate-distortion cost, and N is greater than 1 (Paragraph 141; Paragraph 148-151; Paragraphs 178-181).
Regarding Claim 12, Puri et al teaches the computer device according to claim 11, the operations further comprising: determining motion complexity of the current coding unit; and determining a value of N based on the motion complexity (Paragraph 141; Paragraph 148-154; Paragraphs 162-163; Paragraphs 178-181).
Regarding Claim 13, Puri et al teaches the computer device according to claim 10, the operations further comprising: when calculating the rate-distortion cost, obtaining a prediction residual of the current coding unit, a quantity of bits required for coding a vector difference corresponding to a current motion vector at a current resolution, and a Lagrange multiplier of the current coding unit, wherein the vector difference is a difference between the actual motion vector and the prediction motion vector; and calculating the rate-distortion cost based on the prediction residual, the quantity of bits, and the Lagrange multiplier (Paragraph 141; Paragraph 148-154; Paragraphs 162-163; Paragraphs 178-181).
Regarding Claim 14, Puri et al teaches the computer device according to claim 9, wherein the first resolution is 1/4 pixel resolution, when prediction at another resolution different from the first resolution is performed, prediction at an integer pixel resolution is performed first, and when prediction at the integer pixel resolution is performed, the updating the current best rate-distortion cost based on the second rate-distortion cost and the current best rate-distortion cost, and performing prediction at a next resolution comprises: before the current best rate-distortion cost is updated, and when a multiple by which the current best rate-distortion cost is less than the second rate-distortion cost is greater than a first threshold, skipping prediction at 4 times pixel resolution, and performing prediction at 1/2 pixel resolution (Paragraph 141; Paragraph 148-154; Paragraphs 178-181).
Regarding Claim 15, Puri et al teaches the computer device according to claim 14, when the prediction at the integer pixel resolution is performed, the processor is further configured to implement steps: before the current best rate-distortion cost is updated, and when the first rate-distortion cost and the current best rate-distortion cost do not meet the preset condition, continuing the motion estimation and the motion compensation at the current traversal resolution, and determining a third rate-distortion cost of the current traversal resolution; and when a multiple by which the current best rate-distortion cost is greater than the third rate-distortion cost is greater than a second threshold, skipping traversal at 1/2 pixel resolution, and performing traversal at 4 times pixel resolution (Paragraph 141; Paragraph 148-154; Paragraphs 178-181).
Method claims 1-7 are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 9-15, and is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 8 has similar limitations as those of claim 9 above and is rejected for the same reasons as used above. Puri et al. further teaches a versatile video coding based processing apparatus (Paragraphs 86-89).
Claims 16-20 are drawn to similar limitations as those rejected in claims 9-13 and are rejected for similar reasons as used above. Puri et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, the computer program is executable by at least one processor, and the computer program upon execution by the at least one processor causes the at least one processor to perform the processing method based on versatile video coding according to claim 1 (Paragraphs 86-89).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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 Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights