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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
A correction was made to NPL #6 on the IDS filed 6/10/25 as the Bross NPL should be L1001-v7, not L1011-v7 as listed based on the 227 page NPL filed 1/28/22 in the parent application (no. 17/352,127).
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner would like to note that the method steps of claims 12-19 do not have to be given weight because there is no functional relationship between the medium and the computer (see MPEP 2111.05(III) titled MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA). The non-transitory computer readable storage medium serves as a support for the data (i.e. the bitstream) which is not used by the computer for any other purpose. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium is merely serving as support for data. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has included citations below.
The Examiner recommends adding instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium which cause a processor to execute the method steps listed in the claim to generate a bitstream.
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner notes that half of claim 11 is not required as a result of the “or” in the middle.
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.
Claim 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,363,338 in view of Xu et al. (U.S. 2020/0120353), hereinafter Xu and Bross, Benjamin, et al. ("Versatile Video Coding (Draft 3)", Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Document Jvet-L1001-v7, 12th Meeting: Macao, CN, Oct. 3-12, 2018), hereinafter Bross. An NPL copy of Bross has been attached.
The instant application’s additional limitations have been mapped with motivation below.
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 U.S. Patent’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Xu to reduce redundancy in the input video signal through video compression (Xu [0005]).
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 U.S. Patent’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Joshi to store data for use later in the coding process in a computer system (Joshi [0148]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of creating more accurate luma and chroma motion vectors or arrays.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Joshi et al. (U.S. 2016/0182913), hereinafter Joshi.
Regarding claim 12, Joshi discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Joshi [0148]) to be decoded by the method for video decoding according to claim 1 executed by a processor (see Claim Interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 13, Joshi discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein determining the color sampling format of the video data comprises:
determining the color sampling format of the video data according to identification information corresponding to the color sampling format of the video data in a bitstream (see Claim Interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 14, Joshi discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the method for video decoding further comprises:
invoking a rounding process with the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks as an input, wherein the average luma motion vector is derived using the rounded motion vectors (see Claim Interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 15, Joshi discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the method for video decoding further comprises:
left shifting the motion vectors of control points of the corresponding luma subblocks to obtain left shifted luma motion vectors, wherein the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks are derived using the left shifted luma motion vectors (see Claim Interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 16, Joshi discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 12, wherein the method for video decoding further comprises:
deriving an affine motion vector for a luma subblock out of the plurality of luma subblocks using a control point based affine motion model (see Claim Interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 17, Joshi discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Joshi [0148]) generated by the method for video encoding according to claim 6 executed by a processor (see Claim Interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 18, Joshi discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the method for video decoding further comprises:
invoking a rounding process with the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks as an input, wherein the average luma motion vector is derived using the rounded motion vectors (see Claim Interpretation section above).
Regarding claim 19, Joshi discloses the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the method for video decoding further comprises:
left shifting the motion vectors of control points of the corresponding luma subblocks to obtain left shifted luma motion vectors;
wherein the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks are derived using the left shifted luma motion vectors (see Claim Interpretation section above).
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) 1-11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (U.S. 2020/0120353), hereinafter Xu in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2020/0260108), hereinafter Chen and Bross, Benjamin, et al. ("Versatile Video Coding (Draft 3)", Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Document Jvet-L1001-v7, 12th Meeting: Macao, CN, Oct. 3-12, 2018), hereinafter Bross. An NPL copy of Bross has been attached.
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a method for video decoding, comprising:
receiving video data that is arranged in a plurality of luma subblocks and a plurality of chroma subblocks, wherein each chroma subblock corresponds to one or more luma subblocks (Xu [0026] and fig. 8), wherein the video data has a color sampling format (Xu [0067] and [0113]), and the corresponding luma subblocks are derived according to the color sampling format (Xu [0113], [0117] and fig. 10);
determining the color sampling format of the video data (Xu [0067]); and
deriving an affine motion vector for a chroma subblock out of the plurality of chroma subblocks using an average luma motion vector obtained by averaging motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks (Xu [0113]);
wherein the averaging the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks uses motion vectors from different luma subblocks under different color sampling formats (Xu [0113] and [0067]), and
wherein
in the case that the color sampling format is 4:2:0, the average luma motion vector is derived by taking an average of motion vectors of four corresponding luma subblocks (Xu [0113]).
Xu discloses multiple color sampling formats ([0067]) and deriving an affine motion vectors for a chroma block using an average of corresponding luma blocks, which in the case of 4:2:0 is one chroma block is derived from four corresponding luma blocks ([0113]). Xu does not explicitly disclose the corresponding blocks for the 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 formats.
However, Bross teaches deriving an affine motion vector for a chroma subblock out of the plurality of chroma subblocks using an average luma motion vector obtained by averaging motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks (Bross p. 142, equation 8-639 and surrounding text);
wherein the averaging the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks uses motion vectors from different luma subblocks under different color sampling formats (Bross p. 142, equation 8-639 and surrounding text, p. 14, Table 6-1 and text underneath and surrounding text and pgs. 15-16, figs. 6-1 to 6-3 and surrounding text), and
wherein
in the case that the color sampling format is 4:4:4, the average luma motion vector is a motion vector of one corresponding luma subblock (Bross p. 142, equation 8-639 and surrounding text, p. 14, Table 6-1 and text underneath and surrounding text and pgs. 15-16, figs. 6-1 to 6-3 and surrounding text), and
in the case that the color sampling format is 4:2:2, the average luma motion vector is derived by taking an average of motion vectors of two corresponding luma subblocks (Bross p. 142, equation 8-639 and surrounding text, p. 14, Table 6-1 and text underneath and surrounding text and pgs. 15-16, figs. 6-1 to 6-3 and surrounding text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Bross to create more accurate luma and chroma arrays based on the color sampling format (Bross p. 14, section 6.2).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of creating more accurate luma and chroma motion vectors or arrays.
Regarding claim 2, Xu in view of Bross teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the color sampling format of the video data comprises:
determining the color sampling format of the video data according to identification information corresponding to the color sampling format of the video data in a bitstream (Bross p. 14, section 6.2).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Xu in view of Bross teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
invoking a rounding process with the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks as an input (Bross p. 111, section 8.3.2.14 and p. 142, top), wherein the average luma motion vector is derived using the rounded motion vectors (Bross p. 142, top).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Xu in view of Bross teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
left shifting the motion vectors of control points of the corresponding luma subblocks to obtain left shifted luma motion vectors (Bross p. 135 bottom to p. 136 top and p. 142, top),
wherein the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks are derived using the left shifted luma motion vectors (Bross p. 142, top).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Xu in view of Bross teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
deriving an affine motion vector for a luma subblock out of the plurality of luma subblocks using a control point based affine motion model (Bross p. 136, section 8.3.4.7).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Xu discloses a method for video encoding, comprising:
arranging video data in a plurality of luma subblocks and a plurality of chroma subblocks, wherein each chroma subblock corresponds to one or more luma subblocks (Xu [0026] and fig. 7), wherein the video data has a color sampling format (Xu [0067] and [0113]), and the corresponding luma subblocks are derived according to the color sampling format (Xu [0113], [0117] and fig. 10);
determining the color sampling format of the video data (Xu [0067]); and
deriving an affine motion vector for a chroma subblock out of the plurality of chroma subblocks using an average luma motion vector obtained by averaging motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks (Xu [0113]);
wherein the averaging the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks uses motion vectors from different luma subblocks under different color sampling formats (Xu [0113] and [0067]), and
wherein
in the case that the color sampling format is 4:2:0, the average luma motion vector is derived by taking an average of motion vectors of four corresponding luma subblocks (Xu [0113]).
Xu discloses multiple color sampling formats ([0067]) and deriving an affine motion vectors for a chroma block using an average of corresponding luma blocks, which in the case of 4:2:0 is one chroma block is derived from four corresponding luma blocks ([0113]). Xu does not explicitly disclose the corresponding blocks for the 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 formats.
However, Bross teaches deriving an affine motion vector for a chroma subblock out of the plurality of chroma subblocks using an average luma motion vector obtained by averaging motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks (Bross p. 142, equation 8-639 and surrounding text);
wherein the averaging the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks uses motion vectors from different luma subblocks under different color sampling formats (Bross p. 142, equation 8-639 and surrounding text, p. 14, Table 6-1 and text underneath and surrounding text and pgs. 15-16, figs. 6-1 to 6-3 and surrounding text), and
wherein
in the case that the color sampling format is 4:4:4, the average luma motion vector is a motion vector of one corresponding luma subblock (Bross p. 142, equation 8-639 and surrounding text, p. 14, Table 6-1 and text underneath and surrounding text and pgs. 15-16, figs. 6-1 to 6-3 and surrounding text), and
in the case that the color sampling format is 4:2:2, the average luma motion vector is derived by taking an average of motion vectors of two corresponding luma subblocks (Bross p. 142, equation 8-639 and surrounding text, p. 14, Table 6-1 and text underneath and surrounding text and pgs. 15-16, figs. 6-1 to 6-3 and surrounding text).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Xu’s apparatus with the missing limitations as taught by Bross to create more accurate luma and chroma arrays based on the color sampling format (Bross p. 14, section 6.2).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of creating more accurate luma and chroma motion vectors or arrays.
Regarding claim 7, Xu in view of Bross teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
transmitting identification information corresponding to the color sampling format of the video data in a bitstream (claim 7 recites analogous limitations to claim 2 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 7 discloses an inverse of decoding and Xu discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Xu figs. 7-8).
The same motivation for claim 6 applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Xu in view of Bross teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
invoking a rounding process with the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks as an input, wherein the average luma motion vector is derived using the rounded motion vectors (see claim 3).
The same motivation for claim 6 applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Xu in view of Bross teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
left shifting the motion vectors of control points of the corresponding luma subblocks to obtain left shifted luma motion vectors,
wherein the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks are derived using the left shifted luma motion vectors (see claim 4).
The same motivation for claim 6 applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Xu in view of Bross teaches the method of claim 6, further comprising:
deriving an affine motion vector for a luma subblock out of the plurality of luma subblocks using a control point based affine motion model (see claim 5).
The same motivation for claim 6 applies to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Xu in view of Bross teaches an apparatus for video coding, comprising:
a processor (Xu [0162]); and
a memory configured to store instructions executable by the processor (Xu [0162]),
wherein the processor, upon execution of the instructions (Xu [0162]), is configured to perform a method for video decoding (Xu fig. 8) comprising:
receiving video data that is arranged in a plurality of luma subblocks and a plurality of chroma subblocks, wherein each chroma subblock corresponds to one or more luma subblocks (Xu [0026] and fig. 8), wherein the video data has a color sampling format (Xu [0067] and [0113]), and the corresponding luma subblocks are derived according to the color sampling format (Xu [0113], [0117] and fig. 10);
determining the color sampling format of the video data (Xu [0067]); and
deriving an affine motion vector for a chroma subblock out of the plurality of chroma subblocks using an average luma motion vector obtained by averaging motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks (Xu [0113]);
or
the processor, upon execution of the instructions, is configured to perform a method for video encoding comprising:
arranging video data in a plurality of luma subblocks and a plurality of chroma subblocks, wherein each chroma subblock corresponds to one or more luma subblocks, wherein the video data has a color sampling format, and the corresponding luma subblocks are derived according to the color sampling format;
determining the color sampling format of the video data; and
deriving an affine motion vector for a chroma subblock out of the plurality of chroma subblocks using an average luma motion vector obtained by averaging motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks,
wherein the averaging the motion vectors of the corresponding luma subblocks uses motion vectors from different luma subblocks different color sampling formats, and
wherein
in the case that the color sampling format is 4:4:4, the average luma motion vector is a motion vector of one corresponding luma subblock, and
in the case that the color sampling format is 4:2:2, the average luma motion vector is derived by taking an average of motion vectors of two corresponding luma subblocks (see claims 6, 1 and Claim Interpretation section above).
The same motivation for claims 1 or 6 applies to claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, Xu in view of Bross teaches a method for storing a bitstream, comprising:
generating a bitstream by performing the method for video encoding according to claim 6 (see claim 6); and
storing the bitstream on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Xu [0048]-[0049], [0160] and [0162]).
The same motivation for claim 6 applies to claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (U.S. 2016/0227245) teaches vector averaging for 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 formats ([0023]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
