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 Interpretation
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
At present claim 20, is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream of video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing”, the method comprising a plurality of steps. While the method generating the bitstream may be performed by an intended computer, the method is not stored on the computer readable storage medium. Rather, only a resulting bitstream is stored on the computer readable storage medium. It is the bitstream itself, therefore, that must have a functional relationship. Because there are no recitations of the bitstream causing an intended computer to perform some function, Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored. Therefore, the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is decoded are not given patentable weight. As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Examiner Remarks
Examiner interprets the claims in the alternative only.
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 (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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2022/0329823) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 20:
As discussed above, claim 20 has been interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and associated case law cited therein because claim 20 recites “a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream to be decoded by a decoding method.” As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 20 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely support or carrier for the bitstream being stored wherein the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is decoded should not be given patentable weight. Chen teaches a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream comprising video information (Chen, e.g. Fig. 1, element 112, and pars. 42 - 43: depicting and describing a computer readable storage medium storing encoded video data, wherein encoded video data is the equivalent of the bitstream).
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 – 3, 11 – 14, and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2022/0329823) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant, in view of Hung et al. (US 2020/0120335) (hereinafter Hung).
Regarding claims 1, 18, 19, and 20, Chen teaches a method for video processing, an apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, the instructions when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform the method, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform the method, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by the method performed by an apparatus for video processing, the method comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a set of control point motion vectors (CPMVs) of the current video block (e.g. Fig. 15, element 402, and pars. 216 – 222: depicting and describing that during a conversion between a current block and an encoded bitstream, the system determines a set of CPMVs for the current block);
determining a refined affine motion candidate by applying a refinement process to at least one CPMV in the set of CPMVs based on template matching (e.g. Figs. 9A – 9C and Fig 15, elements 404 - 410, and pars. 121 - 123 and 216 – 222: depicting and describing that the system refines affine motion by applying a template matching refinement process to the set of CPMVs); and
performing the conversion based on the refined affine motion candidate (e.g. Fig. 15 and pars. 216 – 222: depicting and describing that the system reconstructs the current block based on the refined affine motion, wherein reconstructing the current block is the equivalent of performing the conversion).
Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the CPMVs are associated with an affine motion candidate of the current block.
Hung, however, teaches a method for video processing, an apparatus for video processing performing the method, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform the method and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by the method:
wherein the CPMVs are associated with an affine motion candidate of the current block (e.g. par. 70: describing that the system determines CPMVs for a current block based on CPMVs of neighboring blocks in an affine candidate list).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Hung in order for the CPMVs to be associated with an affine motion candidate of the current block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 2, Chen and Hung teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the affine motion candidate is replaced by the refined affine motion candidate (e.g. pars. 120 – 122: describing that the system replaces the initially obtained CPMVs of the current block with the refined CPMVs, wherein the initially obtained CPMVs is the equivalent of the affine motion candidate and the refined CPMVs is the equivalent of the refined affine motion candidate [see discussion above]).
Regarding claim 3, Chen and Hung teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein whether the affine motion candidate is replaced by the refined affine motion candidate is based on a condition associated with the at least one CPMV (e.g. Fig. 15, element 410, and pars. 216 – 221: depicting and describing that the system replaces initial CPMVs with refined CPMVs based on a comparison of template matching cost, wherein the refined CPMVs is the equivalent of the refined affine motion candidate, wherein the initial CPMVs is the equivalent of the affine motion candidate, and determining whether to replace the initial CPMVs with the refined CPMVs based on template matching cost is the equivalent of the condition associated with the at least one CPMV).
Turning to claim 11, Chen and Hung teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
determining an affine candidate list of the current video block, the affine candidate list comprising a set of affine candidates of the current video block; and
applying a CPMV refinement process to at least one affine candidate in the affine candidate list.
Hung, however, teaches a method for video processing:
determining an affine candidate list of the current video block, the affine candidate list comprising a set of affine candidates of the current video block (e.g. pars. 70 – 71: describing that the system derives an affine candidate list for the current block, the candidate list including a set of affine candidates [neighboring affine coded blocks]; and
applying a CPMV refinement process to at least one affine candidate in the affine candidate list (e.g. pars. 72 – 75: describing that the system refines the CMPVs of the affine candidates in the affine candidate list).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Hung in order to determine an affine candidate list of the current video block, the affine candidate list comprising a set of affine candidates of the current video block and apply a CPMV refinement process to at least one affine candidate in the affine candidate list. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Chen and Hung teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein an affine prediction is used as a hypothesis of the current video block coded with multiple hypothesis prediction (MHP) (e.g. pars. 155: describing that affine prediction is used in bi-prediction of the current block wherein bi-prediction is the equivalent of multiple hypothesis prediction).
Turning to claim 13, Chen and Hung teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is based on a syntax element in the bitstream, wherein the syntax element is at least one of: a sequence level, a group of pictures level, a picture level, a slice level, or a tile group level, or wherein the syntax element is included in at least one of: a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a decoded parameter set (DPS), decoding capability information (DCI), a picture parameter set (PPS), an adaptation parameter set (APS), a slice header, or a tile group header (e.g. pars. 54 and 74: describing that syntax data including coding information such as coding modes for how to encode or decode a block of pixel data is included in a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a slice header, and a picture parameter set (PPS) ).
Regarding claim 14, Chen and Hung teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 13, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the syntax element is indicated in a region containing more than one sample or pixel, wherein the region comprises one of: a prediction block (PB), a transform block (TB), a coding block (CB), a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a coding unit (CU), a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, a slice, a tile, or a subpicture (e.g. par 74: describing that syntax data is indicated in a region containing samples, the region being a coding block).
Turning to claim 17, Chen and Hung teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (e.g. Fig. 15 and pars. 216 – 222: depicting and describing that the conversion includes decoding the current video).
Claim(s) 4, 5, and 7 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2022/0329823) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant, in view of Hung et al. (US 2020/0120335) (hereinafter Hung) as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2024/0031595) (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 4, Chen and Hung teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the condition comprises that a ratio of a first template matching cost of the at least one refined CPMV to a second template matching cost of the at least one CPMV is less than a threshold value, or wherein the condition comprises that a ratio of a first template matching cost of the at least one refined CPMV to a second template matching cost of the at least one CPMV is greater than a threshold value.
Li, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein the condition comprises that a ratio of a first template matching cost of the at least one refined CPMV to a second template matching cost of the at least one CPMV is less than a threshold value, or wherein the condition comprises that a ratio of a first template matching cost of the at least one refined CPMV to a second template matching cost of the at least one CPMV is greater than a threshold value (e.g. pars. 379 – 383: describing that the system modifies a candidate list based on template matching cost, the system determining a difference between the template matching cost of an existing candidate [predecessor candidate] and the template matching cost of a new candidate, compares the determined difference to a threshold value, and determines that whether the new candidate should be included in the candidate list based on the comparison, the system including the new candidate when the difference is greater than the threshold value, wherein the predecessor candidate is the equivalent of the at least on CPMV and wherein the new candidate is the equivalent of the refined CPMV).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Li in order for the condition to comprise that a ratio of a first template matching cost of the at least one refined CPMV to a second template matching cost of the at least one CPMV is less than a threshold value, or wherein the condition comprises that a ratio of a first template matching cost of the at least one refined CPMV to a second template matching cost of the at least one CPMV is greater than a threshold value. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 5, Chen, Hung, and Li teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the threshold value is fixed or determined during the conversion, or wherein the threshold value is determined based on a coding mode of the current video block.
Li, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein the threshold value is fixed or determined during the conversion, or wherein the threshold value is determined based on a coding mode of the current video block (e.g. pars. 379 – 383: describing that the threshold is set by the encoder, wherein setting the threshold by the encoder is the equivalent of the threshold value being fixed or determined during the conversion).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Li in order for the threshold value to be fixed or determined during the conversion, or in order for the threshold value to be determined based on a coding mode of the current video block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Chen, Hung, and Li teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the affine motion candidate is replaced by the refined affine motion candidate based on the condition being satisfied (e.g. . Fig. 15, element 410, and pars. 216 – 221: depicting and describing that the system replaces the affine motion candidate with the refined affine motion candidate when the refined affine motion candidate has the better template matching cost, wherein having the better template matching cost is the equivalent of the condition being satisfied).
Turning to claim 8, Chen and Li teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the refined affine motion candidate is used as a new candidate different from the affine motion candidate.
Li, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein the refined affine motion candidate is used as a new candidate different from the affine motion candidate (e.g. pars. 379 – 383: describing that the system determines whether to add a new affine motion candidate to a candidate list in addition to a predecessor affine motion candidate already in the candidate list, wherein the new affine motion candidate is the equivalent of the refined affine motion candidate and wherein the predecessor affine motion candidate is the equivalent of the affine motion candidate).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Li in order for the refined affine motion candidate to be used as a new candidate different from the affine motion candidate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Chen, Hung, and Li teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the affine motion candidate is in an affine candidate list, and the refined affine motion candidate is placed in a position adjacent to the affine motion candidate in the affine candidate list, wherein the refined affine motion candidate is placed in a position right before or after the affine motion candidate in the affine candidate list, or wherein the affine motion candidate is in an affine candidate list, and the refined affine motion candidate is placed in the affine candidate list.
Li, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein the affine motion candidate is in an affine candidate list, and the refined affine motion candidate is placed in a position adjacent to the affine motion candidate in the affine candidate list, wherein the refined affine motion candidate is placed in a position right before or after the affine motion candidate in the affine candidate list, or wherein the affine motion candidate is in an affine candidate list, and the refined affine motion candidate is placed in the affine candidate list (e.g. pars. 379 – 383: describing that the system modifies a candidate list based on template matching cost, the system determining whether a new candidate should be added to the candidate list with an existing candidate [predecessor candidate], wherein the predecessor candidate is the equivalent of the affine motion candidate in the affine candidate list and wherein the new candidate is the equivalent of the refined affine motion candidate).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Li in order for the affine motion candidate to be in an affine candidate list, and the refined affine motion candidate to be placed in a position adjacent to the affine motion candidate in the affine candidate list, wherein the refined affine motion candidate is placed in a position right before or after the affine motion candidate in the affine candidate list, or for the affine motion candidate to be in an affine candidate list, and the refined affine motion candidate to be placed in the affine candidate list. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 10, Chen, Hung, and Li teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
determining a difference between the refined affine motion candidate and a further affine motion candidate in an affine candidate list; in accordance with a determination that the difference is less than or equal to a threshold, keeping the affine candidate list without adding the refine affine motion candidate into the affine candidate list; and in accordance with a determination that the difference is greater than the threshold, adding the refined affine motion candidate in the affine candidate list.
Li, however, teaches a method for video processing:
determining a difference between the refined affine motion candidate and a further affine motion candidate in an affine candidate list; in accordance with a determination that the difference is less than or equal to a threshold, keeping the affine candidate list without adding the refine affine motion candidate into the affine candidate list; and in accordance with a determination that the difference is greater than the threshold, adding the refined affine motion candidate in the affine candidate list (e.g. pars. 379 – 383: describing that the system modifies a candidate list based on template matching cost, the system determining a difference between the template matching cost of an existing candidate [predecessor candidate] and the template matching cost of a new candidate, compares the determined difference to a threshold value, and determines that whether the new candidate should be included in the candidate list based on the comparison, the system including the new candidate when the difference is greater than the threshold value and not including the new candidate when the difference is less than the threshold value, wherein the predecessor candidate is the equivalent of the further affine motion candidate and wherein the new candidate is the equivalent of the refined affine motion candidate).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Li in order to determine a difference between the refined affine motion candidate and a further affine motion candidate in an affine candidate list; in accordance with a determination that the difference is less than or equal to a threshold, keeping the affine candidate list without adding the refine affine motion candidate into the affine candidate list; and in accordance with a determination that the difference is greater than the threshold, adding the refined affine motion candidate in the affine candidate list. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2022/0329823) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant, in view of Hung et al. (US 2020/0120335) (hereinafter Hung) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0092427) (hereinafter Chen 2).
Regarding claim 15, Chen and Hung teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is determined based on coding information of the current video block, wherein the coding information comprises at least one of: a block size of the current video block, a color format of the current video block, a single or dual tree partitioning of the current video block, a color component of the current video block, a slice type of the current video block, or a picture type of the current video block.
Chen 2, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein whether to and/or how to apply the method is determined based on coding information of the current video block, wherein the coding information comprises at least one of: a block size of the current video block, a color format of the current video block, a single or dual tree partitioning of the current video block, a color component of the current video block, a slice type of the current video block, or a picture type of the current video block (e.g. pars. 83 – 92: describing that the system determines whether decoder side refinement is used based on the block size [CU width and height are larger than 8 luma samples], wherein template matching based CPMV refinement is a decoder side refinement tool [see, e.g. Chen, par. 121: describing that template matching based CPMV refinement is a decoder side refinement tool]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Chen 2 in order for whether to and/or how to apply the method is determined based on coding information of the current video block, wherein the coding information comprises at least one of: a block size of the current video block, a color format of the current video block, a single or dual tree partitioning of the current video block, a color component of the current video block, a slice type of the current video block, or a picture type of the current video block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2022/0329823) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant, in view of Hung et al. (US 2020/0120335) (hereinafter Hung) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in vie w of Chang et al. (US 2022/0329822) (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding claim 16, Chen and Hung teach all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein whether a first syntax element is included in the bitstream is determined based on a second syntax element, the first syntax element indicating if a template matching based refinement process is applied to a control point motion vector of the current video block.
Chang, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein whether a first syntax element is included in the bitstream is determined based on a second syntax element, the first syntax element indicating if a template matching based refinement process is applied to a control point motion vector of the current video block (e.g. par. 210: describing that a second flag is included in the bitstream is based on a first flag, the second flag indicating if a template matching refinement is applied to CPMVs of a current block, wherein the second flag is the equivalent of the first syntax element and the first flag is the equivalent of the second syntax element).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Chang in order for whether a first syntax element is included in the bitstream is determined based on a second syntax element, the first syntax element indicating if a template matching based refinement process is applied to a control point motion vector of the current video block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification enables template matching refinement for inter prediction modes (Chang, e.g. pars. 27 - 28: describing a desire to enable template matching refinement for coding tools in order to make use of video coding gains from template matching).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights