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
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's claim for foreign application number PCT/CN2022/138500 filed on 12/12/22.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/12/25 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/12/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “colour” is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Species I corresponding to claims 1-6 and 13-20 in the reply filed on 8/3/26 is acknowledged.
Claim(s) 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected embodiment, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the identified species are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because applicant argument is based on the limitation “and” from “and/or” of the claims but the claim can be interpreted as “or” from “and/or”, this clearly indicates the species are independent or distinct because claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. Applicant also discloses three embodiments in the specification, and as a matter of fact, 3 embodiments are a serious burden to the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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) 1-4 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kidani et al. (US 2021/0185354).
Regarding claim 1, Kidani discloses a method of video processing (see fig. 14), comprising: determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (see 1 in fig. 1), whether an overlap subblock based motion compensation (OBMC) is applied to a current block (see S504-S508 in fig. 14) of the video unit based on at least one of: sample values of samples inside the current block (see S501 or S503 in fig. 14), sample values of samples neighboring to the current block (see S506 in fig. 14),
Regarding claim 2, Kidani further discloses wherein the current block is inter merge coded (see 11b in fig. 4), or
Regarding claim 3, Kidani further discloses wherein whether the OBMC is applied to the current block is based on prediction samples of the current block before the OBMC is applied (see S506 in fig. 14), or
Regarding claim 4, Kidani further discloses wherein current prediction samples before the OBMC are used to determine whether the OBMC is applied to the current block (see S506 in fig. 14), or
Regarding claim 15, Kidani further discloses wherein an indication of whether to and/or how to determine whether the OBMC is applied to the current block is included in one of the following:
Regarding claim 16, Kidani further discloses comprising: determining, based on coded information of the video unit, whether and/or how to determine whether the OBMC is applied to the current block, the coded information including at least one of: a block size (see S503 in fig. 14),
Regarding 17, Kidani further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (see 10 and 30 in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, the claim(s) recite an apparatus (e.g. see ¶ [0019]) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, the claim(s) recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor (e.g. see ¶ [0019]) to perform a method with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, the claim(s) recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor (e.g. see ¶ [0019]) to perform a method with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidani in view of Chen et al. (US 2025/0365405).
Regarding claim 5, Kidani does not disclose wherein
However, Chen discloses a method of video processing wherein for a target direction or angle, a gradient amplitude is determined based on counting gradients or the amplitudes of the gradients of at least one sample neighboring to the current block (see fig. 4).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Chen teachings of histogram of gradient into Kidani video processing for the benefit of further improving video processing efficiency.
Regarding claim 6, the references further discloses or wherein a gradient or the amplitude of the gradient at target position neighboring to the current block is counted (see Chen fig. 4), .
4. Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kidani.
Regarding claim 13 Kidani further discloses wherein an indication of whether to and/or how to determine whether the OBMC is applied to the current block is indicated at one of the followings: sequence level, group of pictures level, picture level, slice level, or tile group level (see S503 in fig. 14, wherein ¶ [0068] implies the size data is from a slice or tile level).
Regarding claim 14, Kidani further discloses wherein an indication of whether to and/or how to determine whether the OBMC is applied to the current block is indicated in one of the following:
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Xiu et al. (US 2024/0098290), discloses video processing with OBMC.
2. Jia et al. (US 2025/0324092), discloses video processing with OBMC.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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 T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights