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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1, 17 and 20 recite the broad recitation “current block”, the claims also recite “a first GPM partition” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation, and the claims also further recite “a first subblock and a second subblock” which is unclear if it further narrows the partition or the block or both. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In this case it is unclear if the current block is partitioned into partitions (which are sub portions of the block) and then each partition is further divided into further subblocks, or if the GPM partition is not partitioning the block itself. Applicant is required to amend to better claim the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20220210427 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen et al. teaches a method for video decoding (Abstract), comprising: receiving a coded video bitstream comprising coded information of one or more pictures (Paragraph 16; Paragraph 45; Paragraph 62);
determining, from the coded information, that a current block in a current picture is coded in a geometric partition mode (GPM) with at least a first GPM partition having a bi- predictive motion vector (Paragraph 16; Paragraph 85-89);
applying subblock based motion refinements with bi-directional motion on at least a first subblock and a second subblock of the first GPM partition, the first subblock and the second subblock having different subblock sizes (Paragraphs 6-8; Paragraphs 112-115); and
reconstructing the current block based on the subblock based motion refinements (Paragraphs 96-102; Paragraph 209).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the subblock based motion refinements are bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) motion refinements, the first subblock is a first BDOF subblock, and the second subblock is a second BDOF subblock (Paragraphs 112-150).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the applying comprises: dividing the first GPM partition into larger subblocks of a NxN size, N being a positive number and the NxN size being larger than or equal to a largest supported BDOF subblock size; determining respective BDOF subblock sizes for the larger subblocks of the NxN size; dividing the larger subblocks into BDOF subblocks based on the respective BDOF subblock sizes; and applying the BDOF motion refinements on the BDOF subblocks (Paragraphs 112-150; Paragraphs 181-203).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a supported BDOF subblock size based on a size of the current block (Paragraphs 112-150).
Regarding Claim5, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the applying comprises: determining a first BDOF subblock size for a first larger subblock of the NxN size according to values of a blending mask in the first larger subblock; dividing the first larger subblock into first BDOF subblocks according to the first BDOF subblock size; and applying the BDOF motion refinements on the first BDOF subblocks (Paragraphs 112-150).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising at least one of: setting the first BDOF subblock size to be the largest supported BDOF subblock size when all of mask values in the first larger subblock correspond a maximum weight value or correspond to a minimum weight value; setting the first BDOF subblock size to be smaller than the largest supported BDOF subblock size and larger or equal to a minimum supported BDOF subblock size when none of the mask values in the first larger subblock correspond to the maximum weight value; setting the first BDOF subblock size to be smaller than the largest supported BDOF subblock size and larger or equal to the minimum supported BDOF subblock size when none of the mask values in the first larger subblock correspond to the minimum weight value; and/or setting the first BDOF subblock size to be smaller than the largest supported BDOF subblock size and larger or equal to the minimum supported BDOF subblock size when none of the mask values in the first larger subblock correspond to the maximum weight value or the minimum weight value (Paragraphs 116-150; Paragraphs 150-178; Paragraphs 181-203).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising: determining whether to apply a BDOF refinement on at least a portion of the first larger subblock based on a mask value in the portion of the first larger subblock (Paragraphs 116-150; Paragraphs 150-178; Paragraphs 181-203).
Regarding Claim 8, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the determining whether to apply the BDOF refinement comprises: determining to apply the BDOF refinement on the portion of the first larger subblock when all of mask values in the portion of the first larger subblock correspond a maximum weight value or correspond to a minimum weight value; determining to apply the BDOF refinement on the portion of the first larger subblock when none of the mask values in the portion of the first larger subblock are zero; determining to apply the BDOF refinement on the portion of the first larger subblock when all of the mask values in the portion of the first larger subblock are higher than a threshold; and determining to apply the BDOF refinement on the portion of the first larger subblock when all of the mask values in the portion of the first larger subblock are smaller than a threshold (Paragraphs 116-150; Paragraphs 150-178; Paragraphs 181-203).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the subblock based motion refinements are decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) refinements, the first subblock is a first DMVR subblock, and the second subblock is a second DMVR subblock (Paragraph 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the applying comprises: dividing the first GPM partition into a plurality of subblocks; and determining whether to apply a DMVR refinement on a specific subblock based on mask values of a blending mask in the specific subblock (Paragraph 8; Paragraphs 116-150; Paragraphs 150-178; Paragraphs 181-203).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: determining a supported DMVR subblock size based on a size of the current block (Paragraph 8; Paragraphs 116-150; Paragraphs 150-178; Paragraphs 181-203).
Regarding Claim 12, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: determining to apply the DMVR refinement on the specific subblock when all of the mask values in the specific subblock correspond a maximum weight value or correspond to a minimum weight value (Paragraph 8; Paragraphs 116-150; Paragraphs 150-178; Paragraphs 181-203).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: applying a multi-pass DMVR on the specific subblock when the DMVR refinement is determined to be applied on the specific subblock.
Regarding Claim 14, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: determining to apply the multi-pass DMVR based on a GPM split mode index (Paragraph 8; Paragraphs 116-150; Paragraphs 150-178; Paragraphs 181-203).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: determining to apply the multi-pass DMVR when a GPM angle is one of horizontal or vertical (Paragraph 8; Paragraphs 116-150; Paragraphs 150-178; Paragraphs 181-203).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen et al. teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the applying comprises: checking whether a GPM partitioning boundary crosses a specific subblock; applying a subblock based motion refinement with bi-directional motion on the specific subblock when the GPM partitioning boundary does not cross the specific subblock; and disabling the subblock based motion refinement for the specific subblock when the GPM partitioning boundary crosses the specific subblock (Paragraphs 116-150; Paragraphs 150-178; Paragraphs 181-203).
Regarding method for video encoding claims 17-19, these claims are drawn to performing the method of encoding corresponding to the method of video decoding of claims 1-3 and 10. These claims recite substantially the same subject matter merely performed in the inverse and are rejected for the same reasons as used above. Chen et al. further teaches a method for video encoding corresponding to the method for video decoding (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 claims 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 storage 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 memory 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. Therefore 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 storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Chen et al. discloses, a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a video media bitstream that is encoded by an encoding method (Paragraph 44; Paragraph 231).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights