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, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (US 2018/0262773, already of record, referred to herein as “Chuang”) in view of Xiu et al. (US 2022/0038679, already of record, referred to herein as “Xiu”).
Regarding claim 1, Chuang discloses: A bit-width control method of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) for decoding a video signal comprising:
obtaining a first reference picture and a second reference picture associated with a 4 X 4 video sub-block, wherein the first reference picture is before a current picture and the second reference picture is after the current picture in a display order (Chuang: Fig. 20, paragraph [0163] and [0164], disclosing a decoder that receives an encoded bitstream that represents video blocks of an encoded video; paragraph [0042], disclosing the use of first and second reference pictures that are to be displayed before—“backward”—or after “forward”—a current picture in a display order; paragraph [0123], disclosing block size of a predefined size including 4x4);
obtaining first prediction samples l(0) for samples in the 4X4 video sub-block from the first reference picture (Chuang: paragraph [0043], disclosing calculation of prediction samples based on motion vectors that indicate a displacement within a reference picture relative to a position in the current block; paragraph [0133], disclosing generation of prediction samples—including a first prediction sample L0—based on motion vectors of a current block; paragraph [0123], disclosing block size of a predefined size including 4x4);
obtaining second prediction samples l(1) for the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block from the second reference picture (Chuang: paragraph [0043], disclosing calculation of prediction samples based on motion vectors that indicate a displacement within a reference picture relative to a position in the current block; paragraph [0133], disclosing generation of prediction samples—including a second prediction sample L1—based on motion vectors of a current block; paragraph [0123], disclosing block size of a predefined size including 4x4);
[…]; and
obtaining bi-prediction samples of the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block based on the motion refinements (Chuang: paragraphs [0080] and [0098], disclosing performance of bi-directional optical flow during
motion compensation; paragraph [0088], disclosing that predicted motion vectors may be refined during the process; paragraph [0123], disclosing block size of a predefined size including 4x4).
Chuang does not explicitly disclose: obtaining motion refinements for the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block based on a 6X 6 window applied to the 4 X 4 video sub-block, by controlling bit-widths of intermediate parameters, wherein the intermediate parameters comprise at least one of horizontal gradients, vertical gradients, and sample differences derived based on the first prediction samples l(0) and the second prediction samples l(1). However, Xiu discloses: obtaining motion refinements for the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block based on a 6 X 6 window applied to the 4 X 4 video sub-block, by controlling bit-widths of intermediate parameters (Xiu: paragraph [0074], disclosing sample-wise motion refinement used in bi-directional optical flow coding; paragraph [0080], Table 1, disclosing intermediate parameters used for stages of the bi-directional optical flow coding; paragraph [0076], disclosing use of a 6x6 window around each 4x4 block), wherein the intermediate parameters comprise at least one of horizontal gradients, vertical gradients, and sample differences derived based on the first prediction samples l(0) and the second prediction samples l(1) (Xiu: paragraph [0078], disclosing use of gradients in both the horizontal and vertical directions as well as sample differences).
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 motion refinement of Xiu in the decoding method of
Chuang.
One would have been motivated to modify Chuang in this manner in order to improve
coding efficiency with moderate implementation complexity as compared to previous coding standards as well as addressing large bit-width issues associated with existing bi-directional optical
flow tools (Xiu: paragraphs [0004] and [0073]). Additionally, both Chuang and Xiu are directed to
the same field of endeavor; namely, coding video using bi-directional optical flow techniques
(Chuang: paragraph [0006]; Xiu: paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Chuang and Xiu disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the motion refinements for the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block based on a 6 X 6 window applied to the 4 X 4 video sub-block, by controlling bit-widths of intermediate parameters further comprises: controlling bit-widths of the horizontal gradients by performing a right shift operation using a first bit-shift value; and controlling bit-widths of the vertical gradients by performing a right shift operation using the first bit-shift value (Xiu: paragraphs [0079] and [0108], Table 2, disclosing right shifting of gradients).
The motivation for combining Chuang and Xiu has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Chuang and Xiu disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the obtaining the motion refinements for the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block based on a 6 X 6 window applied to the 4 X 4 video sub-block, by controlling the bit-widths of the intermediate parameters further comprises, for one sample in the 4 X 4 video sub-block: obtaining a first correlation value, wherein the first correlation value is a sum of horizontal gradients of the first prediction samples l(0) and the second prediction samples l(1) with respect to said one sample; obtaining a second correlation value, wherein the second correlation value is a sum of vertical gradients of the first prediction samples l(0) and the second prediction samples l(1) with respect to said one sample; obtaining a modified first correlation value by right shifting the first correlation value by one; and obtaining a modified second correlation value by right shifting the second correlation value by one (Xiu: paragraphs [0006], [0087] through [0090] and [0107] through [0116], disclosing motion refinement with the use of correlation values that are the sum of gradients; paragraphs [0079] and [0108], Table 2, disclosing right shifting of gradients).
The motivation for combining Chuang and Xiu has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. (Note that Chuang discloses implementation via processor and memory storing instructions in paragraphs [0178]-[0181].)
Regarding claim 13, Chuang and Xiu disclose: A computing device, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory with instructions, which, upon execution by the one or more processor, cause the computing device to perform the method of claim 6 (Chuang: paragraphs [0178]-[0181], disclosing implementation via processor and memory storing instructions).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, Chuang and Xiu disclose: A method of storing a bitstream, comprising: performing the method of claim 6 to generate a bitstream (Chuang: paragraphs [0077] and [0079], disclosing generation of a bitstream that is received for decoding); and storing the bitstream on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Chuang: paragraphs [0161] and [0179], disclosing non-transitory computer-readable storage mediums and storage of the bitstream).
Regarding claim 20, Chuang and Xiu disclose: A method of transmitting a bitstream, comprising: transmitting a bitstream to a decoding device, wherein the bitstream is generated by the method of claim 6 (Chuang: paragraph [0161], disclosing transmission of the coded bitstream to another device such as a decoder).
Claims 4, 8, 11, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang in view of Xiu as applied to claims 1/6/10/13/17 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0128258 A1, referred to herein as “Chen”).
Regarding claim 4, Chuang and Xiu disclose: The method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chuang and Xiu do not explicitly disclose: wherein a bitdepth of the video signal is equal to 12.
However, Chen discloses: wherein a bitdepth of the video signal is equal to 12 (Chen: paragraph [0083], disclosing bi-directional optical flow in video coding; paragraph [0098], disclosing input video with a 12-bit bit depth).
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 bit-depth of Chen in the method of Chuang and Xiu.
One would have been motivated to modify Chuang and Xiu in this manner in order to improve motion vector prediction for video coding of videos at particular bit-depths (Chen: paragraphs [0003] and [0096]).
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang in view of Xiu as applied to claims 1/6/10/13/17 above, and further in view of Ikai et al. (US 2015/03268814 A1, referred to herein as “Ikai”).
Regarding claim 5, Chuang and Xiu disclose: The method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Chuang and Xiu do not explicitly disclose: wherein a bitdepth of the video signal is greater than 12.
However, Ikai discloses: wherein a bitdepth of the video signal is greater than 12 (Ikai: paragraph [0429], disclosing coding of a video having a bit depth greater than 12).
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 bit depth video of Ikai in the method of Chuang and Xiu.
One would have been motivated to modify Chuang and Xiu in this manner in order to encode video content having higher bit depths in a way that reducing the memory necessary for residual prediction (Ikai: paragraphs [0008]-[0016]).
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,583 in view of Xiu.
Claim 1 of Instant Application
A bit-width control method of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) for decoding a video signal comprising:
obtaining a first reference picture and a second reference picture associated with a 4 X 4 video sub-block, wherein the first reference picture is before a current picture and the second reference picture is after the current picture in a display order;
obtaining first prediction samples I(0) for samples in the 4X4 video sub-block from the first reference picture;
obtaining second prediction samples I(1) for the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block from the second reference picture;
obtaining motion refinements for the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block based on a 6 X 6 window applied to the 4 X 4 video sub-block, by controlling bit-widths of intermediate parameters, wherein the intermediate parameters comprise at least one of horizontal gradients, vertical gradients, and sample differences derived based on the first prediction samples I(0) and the second prediction samples I(1) ; and
obtaining bi-prediction samples of the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block based on the motion refinements.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,583
A bit-width control method of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) for decoding a video signal comprising:
obtaining a first reference picture and a second reference picture associated with a video sub-block, wherein the first reference picture is before a current picture and the second reference picture is after the current picture in a display order;
obtaining first prediction samples I(0) for samples in the video sub-block from the first reference picture;
obtaining second prediction samples I(1) for the samples in the video sub-block from the second reference picture;
obtaining motion refinements for the samples in the video sub-block by controlling bit-widths of intermediate parameters, wherein the intermediate parameters comprise one or a combination of following parameters: horizontal gradients, vertical gradients, and sample differences based on the first prediction samples I(0) and the second prediction samples I(1); and
obtaining bi-prediction samples for the samples in the video sub-block based on the motion refinements,
wherein the controlling the bit-widths of the intermediate parameters comprises reducing the bit-widths of the horizontal gradients and the vertical gradients by a first bit-shift value, the first bit-shift value being greater than 4.
Table 1.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,583, discloses many of the same or similar limitations as shown in Table 1.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,583 does not explicitly disclose a 4 X 4 video sub-block and motion refinement based on a 6 X 6 window applied to the 4 X 4 video sub-block.
However, Xiu discloses a 4 X 4 video sub-block (Xiu: paragraph [0090], disclosing motion refinement on a 4x4 block size) and motion refinement based on a 6 X 6 window applied to the 4 X 4 video sub-block (Xiu: paragraph [0084], disclosing motion refinement on the 4x4 block based on a 6x6 window).
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 4 x 4 block size of Xiu in the method of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,583.
One would have been motivated to modify Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,583 in this manner in order to enhance the efficiency of bi-predictive prediction by improving the granularity and the accuracy of motion vectors used for motion compensation (Xiu: paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, the claims recite the same or similar limitations as claim 1, above, and are therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,583 in view of Xiu for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,583 in view of Xiu because the claims recite the same or similar limitations.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,979,583 in view of Xiu because the claims recite the same or similar limitations.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,973 in view of Xiu.
Claim 1 of Instant Application
A bit-width control method of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) for decoding a video signal comprising:
obtaining a first reference picture and a second reference picture associated with a 4 X 4 video sub-block, wherein the first reference picture is before a current picture and the second reference picture is after the current picture in a display order;
obtaining first prediction samples I(0) for samples in the 4X4 video sub-block from the first reference picture;
obtaining second prediction samples I(1) for the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block from the second reference picture;
obtaining motion refinements for the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block based on a 6X 6 window applied to the 4 X 4 video sub-block, by controlling bit-widths of intermediate parameters, wherein the intermediate parameters comprise at least one of horizontal gradients, vertical gradients, and sample differences derived based on the first prediction samples I(0) and the second prediction samples I(1) ; and
obtaining bi-prediction samples of the samples in the 4 X 4 video sub-block based on the motion refinements.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,973
A bit-width control method of bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) for encoding a video signal comprising:
determining a first reference picture and a second reference picture associated with a video sub-block, wherein the first reference picture is before a current picture and the second reference picture is after the current picture in a display order;
determining first prediction samples I(0) for samples in the video sub-block from the first reference picture;
determining second prediction samples I(1) for the samples in the video sub-block from the second reference picture;
determining motion refinements for the samples in the video sub-block by controlling bit-widths of intermediate parameters, wherein the intermediate parameters comprise one or a combination of following parameters: horizontal gradients, vertical gradients, and sample differences obtained based on the first prediction samples I(0) and the second prediction samples I(1); and
determining bi-prediction samples for the samples in the video sub-block based on the motion refinements,
wherein the controlling the bit-widths of the intermediate parameters comprises controlling the bit-widths of the horizontal gradients and the vertical gradients by performing a right shift operation using a first bit-shift value, the first bit-shift value being greater than 4.
Table 2.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,973, discloses many of the same or similar limitations as shown in Table 2.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,973 does not explicitly disclose a 4 X 4 video sub-block and motion refinement based on a 6 X 6 window applied to the 4 X 4 video sub-block.
However, Xiu discloses a 4 X 4 video sub-block (Xiu: paragraph [0090], disclosing motion refinement on a 4x4 block size) and motion refinement based on a 6 X 6 window applied to the 4 X 4 video sub-block (Xiu: paragraph [0084], disclosing motion refinement on the 4x4 block based on a 6x6 window).
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 4 x 4 block size of Xiu in the method of Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,973.
One would have been motivated to modify Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,973 in this manner in order to enhance the efficiency of bi-predictive prediction by improving the granularity and the accuracy of motion vectors used for motion compensation (Xiu: paragraph [0095]).
Regarding claims 6 and 10, the claims recite the same or similar limitations as claim 1, above, and are therefore rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,973 in view of Xiu for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,973 in view of Xiu because the claims recite the same or similar limitations.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,341,973 in view of Xiu because the claims recite the same or similar limitations.
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