DETAILED ACTION
1. This is a first office action in response to application no. 19/273,274 filed on July 18, 2025 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 § 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.
2. Claims 6-9, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: unknowns K0, K1, K2, K3 and K4.
K0, K1, K2, K3 and K4 have not been defined in the claims in order to determine how to evaluate their results. In other words, what is the actual value they represent in order to appreciate the HMVP table size?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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)(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.
4. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0169745).
Regarding claim 1, Han discloses a method of processing video data (See Han [0008]), comprising: maintaining, during a conversion between a current block of visual media data and a bitstream of the visual media data (See Han [0194]), a table storing history based motion vector prediction (HMVP) candidates which include motion information based on previously coded blocks (See Han [0007], [0096] “In either AMVP or merge mode, a motion vector (MV) candidate list is maintained for multiple motion vector predictors” [0114] “constructing a table for previously decoded motion vectors as HMVP candidates”), and performing the conversion for the current block at least based on the table (See Han [0194]), wherein the table has a HMVP table size which depends on one or more motion candidate numbers numHMVPs added to one or more motion candidate lists (See Han Fig. 9, item 404), and wherein the HMVP table size is a maximum number of candidates stored in the table (See Han [0084], [0126]).
Regarding claim 12, Han discloses an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon ( See Han [0008]-[0009]), wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: maintain, during a conversion between a current block of visual media data and a bitstream of the visual media data (See Han [0194]), a table storing history based motion vector prediction (HMVP) candidates which include motion information based on previously coded blocks (See Han [0007], [0096] “In either AMVP or merge mode, a motion vector (MV) candidate list is maintained for multiple motion vector predictors” [0114] “constructing a table for previously decoded motion vectors as HMVP candidates”); and perform the conversion for the current block at least based on the table (See Han [0194]), wherein the table has a HMVP table size which depends on one or more motion candidate numbers numHMVPs added to one or more motion candidate lists (See Han Fig. 9, item 404), and wherein the HMVP table size is a maximum number of candidates stored in the table (See Han [0084], [0126]).
As per claim 2, Han further discloses wherein the one or more motion candidate lists comprises at least one of: a regular merge list, a geometry partition mode merge list, an intra block copy (IBC) merge list, a regular inter advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list, or a regular inter IBC list (See Han [0124] and [0163]).
As per claim 13, Han further discloses wherein the one or more motion candidate lists comprises at least one of: a regular merge list, a geometry partition mode merge list, an intra block copy (IBC) merge list, a regular inter advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list, or a regular inter IBC list (See Han [0124] and [0163]).
As per claims 4-5, 15 and 16, Han further discloses wherein the HMVP table size is a function of the one or more motion candidate numbers numHMVPs, and wherein the function is a function Max which returns a maximum value among several inputs (See Han [0126]-[0127] and [0138]).
As per claim 10, Han further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the current block into the bitstream (See Han [0039], [0046] and [0070]).
As per claim 11, Han further discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the current block from the bitstream (See Han [0071] and [0191]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0169745) in view of Fukishima et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0321129).
As per claims 3 and 14, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claim 2 and 13.
It is noted that Han is silent about wherein the geometry partition mode comprises: splitting a block to multiple sub-portions, wherein at least one of the multiple sub-portions is a non-rectangular and non-square portion.
However, Fukishima teaches wherein the geometry partition mode comprises: splitting a block to multiple sub-portions, wherein at least one of the multiple sub-portions is a non-rectangular and non-square portion (See Fukishima [0225] and [0245]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Han to incorporate Fukishima’s teachings wherein at least one of the multiple sub-portions is a non-rectangular and non-square portion. The motivation for performing such a modification in Han is to provide a geometric division merge mode corresponding to a mode in which the coding/decoding block split into two right triangles by a diagonal line.
7. Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2020/0169745) in view of Wang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0103826).
As per claim 19, Han discloses a non-transitory computer readable recoding medium storing a bitstream of visual media data which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus (See Han [0008]-[0009]), wherein the method comprises: maintaining, for generating the bitstream from a current block of the visual media data (See Han [0194]), a table storing history based motion vector prediction (HMVP) candidates which include motion information based on previously coded blocks (See Han [0007], [0096] “In either AMVP or merge mode, a motion vector (MV) candidate list is maintained for multiple motion vector predictors” [0114] “constructing a table for previously decoded motion vectors as HMVP candidates”);, wherein the table has a HMVP table size which depends on one or more motion candidate numbers numHMVPs added to one or more motion candidate lists (See Han Fig. 9, item 404), and the HMVP table size is a maximum number of candidates stored in the table (See Han [0084], [0126]).
It is noted that Han is silent about generating the bitstream for the current block at least based on the table as claimed.
However, Wang teaches generating the bitstream for the current block at least based on the table (See Wang [0045], [0096]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize the advantage of modifying Han to incorporate Wangs teachings to generate the bitstream for the current block at least based on the table. The motivation for performing such a modification in Han to provide an optimal motion vector prediction and motion vector information of the current block.
As per claim 20, the combination of Han and Wang further discloses wherein the one or more motion candidate lists comprises at least one of: a regular merge list, a geometry partition mode merge list, an intra block copy (IBC) merge list, a regular inter advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) list, or a regular inter IBC list (See Han [0124] and [0163]).
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See the Notice of References Cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights