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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 17, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US20220060735A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses method for video decoding, comprising: receiving a coded video bitstream comprising coded information of one or more pictures (See ¶¶ [0058]- [0059] disclosing receipt at the decoder of a coded video bitstream containing coded information for video blocks/pictures.);
determining, from the coded information, that a current block in a current picture satisfies based motion refinement (See ¶¶ [0046], [0055], and [0059], disclosing determination that the current block is a bi-directionally predicted block for which the DMVR refinement or BDOF refinement workflow is applicable);
starting an application of the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement on at least a portion of the current block (See ¶¶ [0046] and [0055] disclosing commencement of the DMVR stage of the combined refinement process.);
obtaining specific information that is used during the application of the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement (See ¶¶ [0024], [0052], and [0055] disclosing acquisition and reuse of a DMVR-derived cost during the combined refinement workflow); and
determining, whether to continue the application of the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement according to the specific information (See ¶¶ [0021], [0055], and [0057] disclosing a cost-based decision whether the combined DMVR-to-BDOF refinement workflow proceeds into BDOF or stops).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement includes at least one of decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) and/or bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) (See ¶¶ [0046], [0055], and [0057] disclosing both claimed alternatives).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the specific information includes a content difference measure between of a forward predictor of the current block and a backward predictor of the current block, and the method comprises: comparing the content difference measure with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement based on the comparison result (See ¶¶ 0020]- [0022] disclosing a content-difference measure between the forward and backward predictors, threshold comparison, and disabling BDOF based on the result).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the method comprises at least one of:
disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the content difference measure is greater than the threshold; disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the content difference measure is less than the threshold; or disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the content difference measure is less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold (See ¶ [0020] disclosing the less than the threshold alternative ).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method for video decoding of claims 1 and 2, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a method for video encoding for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: an encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the specific information includes at least one of: a temporal identification of the current block; a quantization parameter of the current block; a temporal identification difference of a forward predictor the current block and a backward predictor the current block; a quantization parameter difference of the forward predictor the current block and the backward predictor the current block; a content difference measure of the forward predictor the current block and the backward predictor the current block; and a scene change between the forward predictor the current block and the backward predictor the current block (See ¶¶ [0020] and [0057] disclosing the content difference measure alternative in the encoder-side refinement process).
Regarding claims 20, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream generated by the feature encoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the non-transitory computer readable medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer readable medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a non-transitory computer readable medium storing data and is anticipated by Chen which recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a bitstream (See Chen, ¶ [0060]).
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Liu et al. (US20210385481A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu5481.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1, wherein the specific information includes a temporal identification of the current block, and the method comprises: comparing the temporal identification of the current block with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement based on the comparison result.
However, Liu5481 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses method of claim 1, wherein the specific information includes a temporal identification of the current block, and the method comprises:
comparing the temporal identification of the current block with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement based on the comparison result (See ¶¶ [0236], [0508], and [0512]- [0516] disclosing threshold-based temporal layer control of DMVR or BIO for the picture containing the current block).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Liu5481 as above, in order to reduce unnecessary BIO/DMVR work by using configurable cost criteria, thresholds, and block-based rules to decide whether refinement should run, and by aligning gradient computations so the decoder/encoder does not perform duplicate or inconsistent calculations. (Liu5481, ¶¶ [0120]- [0125], [0139]- [0143])
Regarding claim 4, Chen and Liu5481 disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3, wherein method comprises at least one of: disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification is greater than the threshold; disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification is less than the threshold; or disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification is less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold.
However, Liu5481 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 3, wherein method comprises at least one of: disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification is greater than the threshold; disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification is less than the threshold; or disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification is less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold (See ¶¶ [0236], [0508], and [0512]- [0516] disclosing the when the temporal identification is greater than the threshold condition).
The motivation for combining Chen and Liu5481 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 5, Chen and Liu5481 disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the specific information includes a quantization parameter of the current block, the method comprises:
comparing the quantization parameter of the current block with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement based on the comparison result.
However, Liu5481 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the specific information includes a quantization parameter of the current block, the method comprises: comparing the quantization parameter of the current block with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement based on the comparison result (See ¶¶ [0237], [0510], and [0512]-[0516], disclosing QP threshold control of DMVR and/or BIO.).
The motivation for combining Chen and Liu5481 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 6, Chen and Liu5481 disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 5, wherein the method comprises at least one of: disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter is greater than the threshold; disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter is less than the threshold; or disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter is less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold..
However, Liu5481 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the method comprises at least one of: disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter is greater than the threshold; disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter is less than the threshold; or disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter is less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold (See ¶¶ [0237], [0510], and [0512]-[0516], disclosing the disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter is greater than the threshold alternative).
The motivation for combining Chen and Liu5481 has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Liu5481, and further, in view of Esenlik (US20200137414A1), hereinafter referred to as Esenlik.
Regarding claim 7, Chen and Liu5481 disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the specific information includes a temporal identification difference of a first temporal identification of a forward predictor of the current block and a second temporal identification of a backward predictor of the current block, and the method comprises: comparing the temporal identification difference with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement based on the comparison result.
However, Esenlik and Liu5481 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the specific information includes a temporal identification difference of a first temporal identification of a forward predictor of the current block and a second temporal identification of a backward predictor of the current block, and the method comprises: comparing the temporal identification difference with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement based on the comparison result (See Esenlik ¶¶ [0021], [0119], [0121] for obtaining and comparing temporal-layer identifiers of the two reference pictures; and Liu5481 ¶¶ [0508], [0512]-[0516] for threshold-based disablement of DMVR and/or BIO).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Chen and Liu5481 to add the teachings of Esenlik as above, in order to determine motion vector with less complexity while still maintaining accuracy (Esenlik, [0015]).
Regarding claim 8, Chen, Liu and Esenlik disclose all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the method comprises at least one of: disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification difference is greater than the threshold; disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification difference is less than the threshold; or disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification difference is less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold..
However, Liu5481 and Esenlik from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the method comprises at least one of: disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification difference is greater than the threshold; disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification difference is less than the threshold; or disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the temporal identification difference is less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold (See Esenlik ¶¶ [0021], [0119], [0121] for obtaining and comparing temporal-layer identifiers of the two reference pictures; and Liu5481 ¶¶ [0508], [0512]-[0516] for threshold-based disablement of DMVR and/or BIO)..
The motivation for combining Chen, Liu and Esenlik has been discussed in connection with claim 7, above.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Su et al. (US20190132606A1), hereinafter referred to as Su.
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1, wherein the specific information includes a quantization parameter difference of a first quantization parameter of a forward predictor of the current block and a second quantization parameter of a backward predictor of the current block, and the method comprises: comparing the quantization parameter difference of the current block with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement based on the comparison result.
However, Su from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses method of claim 1, wherein the specific information includes a quantization parameter difference of a first quantization parameter of a forward predictor of the current block and a second quantization parameter of a backward predictor of the current block, and the method comprises: comparing the quantization parameter difference of the current block with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement based on the comparison result (See ¶¶ [0061] and [0089], disclosing the QP difference of the two bi-prediction references, threshold comparison, and refinement termination or skipping of the refinement).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Su as above, in order to allow early termination after partial refinement when further refinement appears unnecessary, using similarity or distortion thresholds (Su, ¶¶ [0004], [0052]- [0058).
Regarding claim 10, Chen and Su disclose all the limitations of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 9, wherein the method comprises at least one of: disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter difference is greater than the threshold; disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter difference is less than the threshold; or disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter difference is less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold.
However, Su from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the method comprises at least one of: disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter difference is greater than the threshold; disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter difference is less than the threshold; or
disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter difference is less than a first threshold and greater than a second threshold (See ¶¶ [0061] and [0089] disclosing disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the quantization parameter difference is greater than the threshold);
The motivation for combining Chen and Su has been discussed in connection with claim 9, above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Sethuraman et al. (US20220116648A1), hereinafter referred to as Sethuraman.
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1, wherein the specific information indicates whether a scene change happens between of a forward predictor of the current block and a backward predictor of the current block, and the method comprises: disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the scene change happens.
However, Sethuraman from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses method of claim 1, wherein the specific information indicates whether a scene change happens between of a forward predictor of the current block and a backward predictor of the current block, and the method comprises: disabling the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement when the scene change happens (See ¶¶ [0340]- [0344] disclosing scene-transition-type failure conditions and conditional disablement of DMVR or BDOF).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Sethuraman as above, in order to let the codec keep the benefit of refinement on suitable blocks while avoiding unnecessary or harmful refinement on others (Sethuraman, ¶¶ [0136]- [0137] and [0165]- [0189]).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of He et al. (US20210029378A1), hereinafter referred to as He.
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1, wherein the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement is bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), the specific information includes one or more intermediate BDOF offset values, and method comprises: determining, whether to continue the application of the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement according to the one or more intermediate BDOF offset values.
However, He from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses method of claim 1, wherein the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement is bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), the specific information includes one or more intermediate BDOF offset values, and method comprises: determining, whether to continue the application of the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement according to the one or more intermediate BDOF offset values (See ¶¶ [0003]-[0005], disclosing intermediate gradient values generated for BDOF and using threshold results to decide whether to perform BDOF refinement or the direction of the BDOF refinement).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of He as above, in order to let the codec avoid costly BDOF processing where it is unlikely to help. (He, ¶¶ [0114]- [0132])
Regarding claim 15, Chen and He disclose all the limitations of claim 15, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 14, wherein the one or more intermediate BDOF offset values include at least one of a gradient value, a cross-correlation value, an auto-correlation value.
However, He from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the one or more intermediate BDOF offset values include at least one of a gradient value, a cross-correlation value, an auto-correlation value (See ¶¶ 0003]- [0004] disclosing the claimed gradient value alternative).
The motivation for combining Chen and He has been discussed in connection with claim 14, above.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Liu et al. (US20220103827A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu827
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement is bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), the specific information includes a BDOF offset, and the method comprises: comparing the BDOF offset with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and determining whether to apply the BDOF offset according to the comparison result.
However, Liu827 from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the bi-directional motion predictors based motion refinement is bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), the specific information includes a BDOF offset, and the method comprises: comparing the BDOF offset with a threshold to obtain a comparison result; and determining whether to apply the BDOF offset according to the comparison result (See ¶¶ [0005], [0011], [0015], [0105], [0867], and [1047], disclosing thresholded based BDOF motion-offset control and determine whether to apply the BODF based on the controlled offset information).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Chen to add the teachings of Liu827 as above, in order to make refinement more bounded and implementation-friendly while preserving tool-specific behavior (Liu827, ¶¶ [0359]- [0370], [0467]- [0475]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights