DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 07/22/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the non-patent information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Generally, Examiner notes that Applicant’s amendment appears to have reordered the claim limitations and added a reference to a processor in the preamble, but did not materially alter the scope of the claim limitations from the previously rejected claims. It is generally understood in the art that a feature can be enabled when the enabling conditions are present and disabled when they are not present. And the specific claimed conditions appear to also be known profile conditions under the video coding standards and obvious to apply in the claimed context. Examiner suggests that Applicant elaborate on the “refuse” claim language to require something materially different than simply not-using a coding mode that is not enabled.
Applicant argues: “Applicant's invention is applied to Versatile Video Coding (VVC), which is a technical improvement of VVC. In VVC, the division method for CUs has changed; divided CUs are no longer fixed square blocks but arbitrary blocks. There are blocks with height larger than width or height smaller than width. The CU size is more flexible. On this basis, better reference pictures need to be matched in the bidirectional prediction process of CU. If long-term reference pictures are used, it will bring a series of problems.”
Examiner notes that: The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). A bare statement that the claimed invention solves “a series of problems” is not evidence either of long unsolved problems in the art or that the claims have a specific nexus to solving such long unsolved problems.
Applicant argues: “A technical problem to be solved by Applicant's claimed invention includes how to control the enabling of the BDOF mode for the CU in the VVC technology, i.e., how to better reduce the complexity of enabling DMVR mode …”
Examiner notes that this argument is not supported by the record. Enabling of the BDOF mode is a well established feature of the VVC standard and the cited prior art. This is not a problem in the art. Further, a listing of multiple specific enabling conditions is not clearly a reduction in complexity of enabling DMVR mode over prior art.
Applicant argues: “A technical solution of claim 1 involves the decoding device autonomously determining under what conditions to enable the DMVR mode …”
Examiner notes that the claims do not recite “autonomously,” and automation is not a meaningful distinction in the context of processing image data.
Regarding the newly amended claim language, Applicant argues: That is, Applicant's revised claim 1 defines that the processor of the decoding device is required to use DMVR mode to decode the current image block only when the above six conditions are all satisfied.”
Examiner notes that this is not the recited claim language, the recited claim language is addressed by the updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “That is to say, in Li, whether the decoder uses BDOF ( or PROF) tools is determined by the coder. The decoder in Li cannot determine which tool to use for decoding.”
Examiner notes that the present claim does not elaborate on the determination steps taken by the processor and explicitly requires “picture header control information indicates that it is required to use the DMVR mode for decoding the current image block;” which corresponds to the prior art.
Applicant argues: “Li discloses selecting a tool based on a profile, for example, enabling the BDOF tool based on specific CU width/height dimensions, CU encoding mode, and bidirectional prediction mode (see paragraphs [0051], [0 139]-[0140] of Li). However, in Li, the enabling conditions for the BDOF tool do not include "a size of a reference picture … Specifically, Li only mentions that original pictures to be encoded have sizes, e.g., a picture size of " l 920x1080," but this picture size " l 920x1080" is merely an example of the size of the image before encoding (see paragraph [0004] of Li).”
Examiner notes that this argument does not address the obviousness reasons for rejection provided below. Both Li and Lee provide examples that read directly on this claimed condition. There is no evidence on the record to indicate that the clamed selection of conditions provides unexpected results when compared to the conditions used in the prior art.
Applicant argues: “Li specifically defines the enabling conditions for BDOF as: 1) the CU's height is not 4, and the CU is not in size of 4x8; 2) the CU is not coded using affine mode or the ATMVP merge mode; and 3) the CU is coded using "true" bi-prediction mode (i.e., one of the two reference pictures is prior to the current picture in display order and the other is after the current picture in display order). In contrast, the purpose of the present invention is to design a set of enabling conditions for the DrvIVR mode in VVC, which is precise and efficient”
Examiner notes that prior art illustrates that a variety of conditions, including the claimed conditions, can be chosen for the decoder side implementation. Choosing conditions appears to be an known solution, and choosing the claimed variation of conditions appears to be an obvious solution. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Additionally, as mentioned above, Li does not mention the DMVR mode at all, nor does it mention the combination of above conditions … Jeong fails to cure the deficiencies of Li.”
Examiner notes that this fails to address the reasons for the obviousness rejection stated in the Office Action. See obviousness rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Furthermore, as acknowledged by the Examiner on page 8 of the Office Action, Jeong does not explicitly teach "a size of a reference picture qf the current image block is the same as a size of a picture to which the current image block belongs." Additionally, Jeong is silent about "the reference picture is not a long-term picture." Therefore, Jeong does not disclose using "a size of a reference picture of the current image block is the same as a size of a picture to which the current image block belongs and the reference picture is not a long-term picture" as enabling conditions for the DMVR mode”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument inaccurately restates the reasons for rejection, and thus it is not persuasive. Jeong does not explain and Lee is cited to teach application to a profile.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, although the enabling conditions for DMVR in Jeong mention bidirectional prediction, the conditions required for bidirectional prediction in Jeong's DMVR enabling conditions do not include "distances between the two reference pictures and the picture to -which the current image block belongs are equal"”
Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The claims are rendered obvious over a combination of references in the manner addressed below.
Applicant argues: “Additionally, Jeong discloses that in a general motion vector prediction mode that is not a merge mode, the video decoding apparatus obtains a motion vector predictor index and a motion vector difference (see paragraph [300] of Jeong). Jeong's motion vector prediction mode is not the general merge mode of Applicant's claimed invention, and it has no relation to the enabling of DMVR mode.”
Examiner notes that Applicant fails to address the full reasons for rejection which includes feature of a general merge mode. Jeong teaches the general merge mode. The fact that Jeong can also use other modes does not contradict the reasons for rejection.
Applicant argues: “Furthermore, Jeong discloses that motion vector candidates can be determined from the base motion vector in the merge motion vector difference mode. The distance between the base motion vector and the motion vector candidate can be determined as s, 2s, or 3s, etc., according to a difference distance index (see Figure 2 1 of Jeong). This only relates to distance calculation between a motion vector and a motion vector candidate in the merge motion vector difference mode.”
Examiner notes that this argument does not address the specific reasons for rejection provided in the Office Action. Motion vectors are distances between the predicted and the reference frames, a feature that is both described and illustrated in the prior art. See below.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, Jeong discloses that the decoding device may previously determine the minimum size allowed for the reference data units included in the current picture (see paragraph [ 192] of Jeong). However, determining this minimum size is for determining the coding unit, and has no relation to enabling the DMVR mode. Additionally, Jeong does not disclose that a width of the current image block is greater than or equal to a first threshold, a height of the current image block is greater than or equal to a second threshold, and an area of the current image block is greater than or equal to a third threshold, let alone using this as an enabling condition for the DMVR mode.”
Examiner notes that this argument concludes that the claimed feature is different from the prior art but does not address the specific reasons for rejection provided in the Office Action. See below.
Applicant argues: “Furthermore, Jeong does not disclose the combination of conditions 1 )-6) above as conditions for enabling the DrvIVR mode; conversely, the enabling conditions for the DMVR mode disclosed in Jeong are completely different from the enabling conditions for the DMVR mode defined by Feature A of the present invention.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues: “On page 6 of the Office Action, the Examiner considers that based on the disclosure of paragraphs [449] and [468] of Jeong, it would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to replace BDOF mode in Li with DMVR mode in Jeong. The applicant respectfully disagrees. First, although the BDOF mode and the DMV R mode are modes under the VVC standard, the two modes belong to completely different technologies, …”
Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Further, Applicant’s specification itself indicates that the modes belong to the same category and thus are substitutable selections. See rejection below.
Applicant argues: “However, Jeong does not teach or disclose that the BIO mode and the DMVR mode can be applied under the same conditions when the merge motion difference mode is not used. Additionally, as mentioned above, the enabling conditions for the DMV R mode in Jeong are completely different from the enabling conditions for the BDOF mode in Li. Those skilled in the art would not directly use all the enabling conditions … Even if the enabling conditions for the DMVR mode in Jeong were combined with or replaced by the enabling conditions for the BDOF mode in Li, it is impossible to obtain the enabling conditions for the DMVR of Applicant's claimed invention.”
Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Prior art need not anticipate that each mode uses the exact claim conditions, prior art indicates that conditions for the claimed mode can be selected and that the claimed conditions are known.
Applicant argues: “Additionally, Lee relates to the selection of video coding tools under the HEVC standard. As defined in Applicant's claim 1, the present invention relates to enabling the DMV R mode under the VVC standard. However, it is well knmvn that the HEVC standard does not support the DMVR mode. person skilled in the art, seeking to optimize enabling conditions for DMVR, would have no motivation to consider the contents on the selection of video coding tools under the HEVC standard …”
Examiner notes that VVC standard H.266 is a later version and incorporates the features of the HEVC standard H.265. Therefore, Lee is in the same field of invention and relevant to the claim features for which it is cited.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Where prior art recites claimed features combined with additional features, omission of the additional features in the claim does not distinguish it over the prior art reference. Further, an omission of an element and its function is obvious. M.P.E.P. 2144.04(II)(A), Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989); See also In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965) (Omission of additional framework and axle which served to increase the cargo carrying capacity of prior art mobile fluid carrying unit would have been obvious if this feature was not desired.); and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (deleting a prior art switch member and thereby eliminating its function was an obvious expedient).
A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
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 (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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US 20200351495 to Li (“Li”) in view of US 20210360277 to Jeong (“Jeong”) and in view of US 20180098066 to Lee (“Lee”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A decoding method,
is applied in Versatile Video Coding: (Note that this portion of the preamble states an intended application of the method, but does not limit the claim to performing a particular step, such as “applying Versatile Video Coding.” Cumulatively, Prior art teaches: “the encoded video data (304), (307), and (309) (e.g., video bitstreams) can be encoded according to certain video coding/compression standards. Examples of those standards include ITU-T Recommendation H.265. In an example, a video coding standard under development is informally known as Versatile Video Coding (VVC). The disclosed subject matter may be used in the context of VVC.” Li, Paragraph 37. )
wherein the current image block is a prediction unit and the current image block is a decoding block obtained by dividing using one of quadtree division, horizontal binary tree division, vertical binary tree division, horizontal trigeminal tree division, or vertical ternary tree division; (First, note that this portion of the preamble does not limit the claim to performing a particular method step; the body of the claim separately and explicitly recites all the required operating conditions (including the conditions in this preamble) and thus does not depend on the preamble for completeness. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “At least one of information indicating whether quad splitting is performed, information indicating whether multi-splitting is performed, split direction information, or split type information may be obtained as the split shape mode information from the bitstream. … or binary/ternary split.” Jeong, Paragraphs 83-85. “According to some embodiments, BDOF is used to refine the bi-prediction signal of a CU at the 4x4 sub-block level,” which is an example of quadtree division. Li, Paragraph 139 and examples of other tree divisions in Paragraph 76. See statement of motivation above.)
which is performed by a decoding device for decoding a current image block … wherein the decoding device comprises a processor, a machine-readable storage medium storing machine-executable instructions, the processor and the machine-readable storage medium communicate via a system bus, the processor performs the decoding method by reading and executing machine-executable instructions in the machine-readable storage medium corresponding to a decoding control logic, the method comprises: (Note that this portion of the preamble does not limit the method to performing particular steps; it recites computer structures intended to be used with the method, however the method steps do not refer to this combination of structures or rely on them for completeness. Cumulatively note that Li teaches: “the video encoders (303), (503), and (503), and the video decoders (310), (410), and (710) can be implemented using one or more processors that execute software instructions.” Li, Paragraph 92.)
when decoding the current image block, … determining, by the processor, whether to enable a Decoder-side Motion Vector Refinement (DMVR) mode for decoding the current image block; (“a profile can select [enable/require] certain tools as the only tools available for use under that profile from all the tools available in the video compression technology or standard.” Li, Paragraph 51. “A bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) tool is included in VTM4,” also known as the BIO tool. Li, Paragraph 139, 140.
Although Li primarily discusses this feature with respect to the BDOF or BIO mode of the VVC, DMVR mode is also introduced in the same group of the VVC, as a substitute or to be combined with a BIO mode. See Specification Pages 6-8.
Jeong confirms that BIO and DMVR modes of the VVC and HEVC can be substituted or combined: “combining a merge motion vector difference mode with a bi-directional optical flow (BIO) mode and DMVR mode … the BIO mode may be used only in a specific case … applying the DMVR mode only when distance index is equal to or less than a specific size,” and other conditions are satisfied. Jeong, Paragraphs 443, 447, 469-472. Thus, if the image block satisfies a particular profile (see example profiles for claim elements below), the profile can serve enable a particular video compression tool in VVC, such as BDOF and DMVR tools that that provide decoder-side motion vector refinement and can be enabled or disabled in this manner.
Jeong also confirms that these modes are decoder side modes: “a bi-directional optical flow (BIO) mode and DMVR mode will be described as a representative decoder side motion vector derivation technology.” Jeong, Paragraph 443.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Li to combine or substitute the BDOF mode with a DMVR mode as taught in Jeong, because “as a decoder side motion vector derivation technology … The BIO mode … The DMVR mode is a type of a post-processing mode of a predicted block and encoding efficiency is increased by correcting pixels in fine units.” Jeong, Paragraphs 443, 449, 468.)
in response to determining, by the processor, that the current image block satisfies an enabling condition for the DMVR mode, requiring the processor to use the DMVR mode for decoding the current image block; (Generally: “a profile can select [enable/not-enable] certain tools” Li, Paragraphs 51-52. Specifically, “Accordingly, the DMVR mode may be applied when the motion vector of the bi-direction follows a certain degree of consistency. … two conditions may be separately used or simultaneously used.” Jeong, Paragraphs 472, 480. See statement of motivation above.)
in response to determining, by the processor, that the current image block does not satisfy the enabling condition for the DMVR mode, refusing the processor to use the DMVR mode for decoding the current image block. (While the term “refusing to use” ordinarily implies omission of a step that is required to be performed otherwise, the previous claim elements and the Specification indicate that performance of the BDOF and DMVR is optional and subject to meeting selection criteria. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, these elements are directed to not selecting/enabling the BDOF mode when the criteria of the previous claim element are not met.
Prior art teaches: Generally: “a profile can select [enable/not-enable] certain tools” Li, Paragraphs 51-52. Specifically, “the DMVR mode may be applied only … Accordingly, the DMVR mode may be applied when the motion vector of the bi-direction follows a certain degree of consistency. … two conditions may be separately used or simultaneously used.” Jeong, Paragraphs 470, 472, 480. Thus, the mode will not apply when the required conditions are not met. See statement of motivation above and treatment of the specific conditions below.)
wherein the enabling condition for the DMVR mode comprises: (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, because the conditions below are connected by “and,” the enabling condition is satisfied when all of the conditions below are met, and the enabling condition is not satisfied when at least one of the conditions below is not met.)
a size of a reference picture of the current image block is the same as a size of a picture to which the current image block belongs, belongs (
Li describes a preference for using pictures of fixed resolution “for example, 1920x1080” in Paragraph 4, where “Certain coded pictures, once fully reconstructed, can be used as reference pictures” and thus with a fully reconstructed resolution in Paragraph 50, and Li does not use picture interpolation or decimation in performing decoder side modes. Thus, at the broadest level, the fixed resolution of all the pictures in Li satisfies the claimed condition of having the same size for the reference and the coded pictures.
Cumulatively, in Li, “a profile can select [enable/require] certain tools as the only tools available for use under that profile from all the tools available in the video compression technology or standard,” where a compression profile can include layer information, maximum picture size, maximum reference picture size, and so on, as noted in Li, Paragraphs 51-52. Li and Jeong do not explicitly teach that the profile can require same size pictures.
Lee teaches such a combination in the context of coding video under the video coding standards such as HEVC and AVC: “different scalable layers are provided that represent the video bitstream in different spatial resolutions ( or picture resolution) [sizes] … The base layer may conform to a profile …” Lee, Paragraph 80. Thus, a base layer (having a set picture resolution for all pictures) can be part of a profile for enabling specific coding tools, and this feature is part of the HEVC video coding standard. This corresponds to the layer embodiment in Specification, Page 18, 8th paragraph.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of required picture sizes and complexity profiles in Li and Jeong to use a profile requiring a specific picture layer (defining a fixed picture size) for the pictures involved when selecting a video coding tool under the HEVC (such as BDOF and DMVR) as taught in Lee, in order to record the coding preference and to apply the coding tool to pictures that are coded under the same profile, coding standard, and/or coding complexity. See Li, Paragraph 51 and Lee, Paragraph 80.)
and the reference picture is not a long-term reference picture; (The claim does not define what a long-term reference picture is. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, a near term reference picture can be co-located or a picture that is closest in time (which satisfy the claim condition), and a long-term (far in time) reference picture with is further away in time than the near term reference picture (which is does not satisfy the claimed condition). See Specification Page 37, third paragraph and similarly in Li, Paragraph 69.
As noted in prior art, “a profile can select [enable/require] certain tools as the only tools available for use under that profile from all the tools available in the video compression technology or standard,” Li, Paragraph 51. Li illustrates an example that uses only near term pictures, one co-located picture as a short-term reference and optionally a near-term “tb” reference picture for the current picture, but not a long-term “td” reference picture in Figs. 9 and 16 and description in Paragraphs 101, 139. Thus, the use of BDOF coding under this profile was known in the art.)
a current mode of the current image block is a general merge mode; (“the skip mode nor the merge mode, the video decoding apparatus 1700 obtains a motion vector … method of combining a merge motion vector difference mode [general merge mode] with a bi-directional optical flow (BIO) mode and DMVR mode” Jeong, Paragraphs 300, 443. See statement of motivation above.)
picture header control information indicates that it is required to use the DMVR mode for the current image block; (Note that “picture header” is called “picture parameter set” in VVC. Prior art teaches this: “Information indicating whether to predict a motion vector by using the ATMVP candidate in the merge motion vector difference mode may be signaled in a slice level or a higher level (picture, sequence, sequence parameter set (SPS), or picture parameter set (PPS)).” Here the use of the general merge mode allows to use DMVR mode implicitly. Jeong, Paragraphs 441, 466. See statement of motivation above.)
the current image block uses a bidirectional prediction mode, (“the CU is coded using "true" bi-prediction mode (i.e., one of the two reference pictures is prior to the current picture in display order and the other is after the current picture in display order).” Li, Paragraph 139. See similarly in Jeong, Paragraph 443, 445, and Fig. 21. See statement of motivation above.)
a display order of one of two reference pictures is previous to a picture to which the current image block belongs, and a display order of the other of the two reference pictures is subsequent to the picture to which the current image block belongs, (“the CU is coded using "true" bi-prediction mode (i.e., one of the two reference pictures is prior to the current picture in display order and the other is after the current picture in display order).” Li, Paragraph 139. See similarly in Jeong, “a bi-direction (L0 direction and L1 direction) are used.” Jeong, Paragraph 443, 445 and Fig. 21 which indicates that L0 and L1 as being the previous and the subsequent reference pictures having the same distance from the current picture. See statement of motivation above.)
and distances between the two reference pictures and the picture to which the current image block belongs are equal; (“the encoding efficiency may be increased by additionally applying the DMVR mode only when the distance index is equal to or less than a specific size.” Jeong, Paragraph 469. When the merge motion vector difference mode is applied to bi-prediction, prediction blocks in a bi-direction (L0 direction and L1 direction) are used.” Jeong, Paragraph 443, 445 and Fig. 21 which indicates that L0 and L1 as being the previous and the subsequent reference pictures having the same distance from the current picture. See statement of motivation above.)
weighted weights of the two reference pictures of the current image block are the same; (As noted in Jeong, Paragraph 443, 445 and Fig. 21 the reference pictures are at equal distances and sizes which are applied with the same weight. Also, neither Li nor Jeong advises weighting the reference pictures differently in any other measure.)
a size of the current image block satisfies a limiting condition comprising: a width of the current image block is greater than or equal to a first threshold, a height of the current image block is greater than or equal to a second threshold, and an area of the current image block is greater than or equal to a third threshold;” (“According to some embodiments, BDOF is used to refine the bi-prediction signal of a CU at the 4x4 sub-block level.” Li, Paragraph 139. This indicates that the width is equal to 4 and the height is equal to 4. Also note “the image decoding apparatus 100 may previously determine the minimum size allowed for the reference data units included in the current picture” Joeng, Paragraph 192. See statement of motivation above.)
Regarding Claim 2: ”The method according to claim 1, wherein, the picture header control information indicating that it is required to use the DMVR mode for the current image block, comprises:
a switch for picture header control DMVR mode is of a first numerical value; wherein the switch for picture header control DMVR mode being of a first numerical value means that picture header control requires to use the DMVR mode for decoding the current image block; (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the switch can be a signal or a flag in the picture parameter set, and it is “for” DMVR mode but not limited to a DMVR mode flag. Prior art teaches “Information indicating whether to predict a motion vector by using the ATMVP candidate in the merge motion vector difference mode may be signaled in a slice level or a higher level (picture, sequence, sequence parameter set (SPS), or picture parameter set (PPS)).” Here the use of the general merge mode is a switch that allows to use DMVR, which is coded implicitly based on other parameters. Jeong, Paragraphs 441, 466. “whether the merge motion vector difference mode is applied to the current block, based on the information included in the bitstream.The information indicating whether the merge motion vector difference mode is applied may include a flag or an index,” which encode numerical values. Jeong, Paragraph 228. See statement of motivation above.)
wherein, the size of the current image block satisfying the limiting condition, comprises: a width of the current image block is greater than or equal to 8, a height of the current image block is greater than or equal to 8, (“According to an embodiment, the image decoding apparatus 100 may previously determine the minimum size allowed for the reference data units included in the current picture. Accordingly, the image decoding apparatus 100 may determine various reference data units having sizes equal to or greater than the minimum size. … The size of the coding unit may be classified based on the length of a long side of the coding unit, the length of a short side, or the area.” Jeong, Paragraphs 192-193, 203. For example, “Using a luma prediction block as an example of a prediction block, the prediction block includes a matrix of values (e.g., luma values) for pixels, such as 8x8 pixels, 16x16 pixels, 8x16 pixels, 16x8 pixels, and the like.” Li, Paragraph 139. Thus, the minimum size of the height and width of the block can be selected to be 8. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
and the area of the current image block is greater than or equal to 128.” (“the image decoding apparatus 100 may determine various reference data units having sizes equal to or greater than the minimum size. … the shape and size of reference coding units may be determined based on various data units capable of including one or more reference coding units (e.g., sequences, pictures, … The size of the coding unit may be classified based on the length of a long side of the coding unit, the length of a short side, or the area.” Jeong, Paragraphs 192-193, 203. For example, “Using a luma prediction block as an example of a prediction block, the prediction block includes a matrix of values (e.g., luma values) for pixels, such as 8x8 pixels, 16x16 pixels, 8x16 pixels, 16x8 pixels, and the like.” Li, Paragraph 139. In this case, selecting blocks that are 16x16 pixels, 8x16 pixels, 16x8 pixels as minimum size blocks, provides an area that is greater than or equal to 128. The minimum size of 128 also applies where a shape such as 8x16 or 16x8 is selected along with the minimum size 8. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The method according to claim 1 , wherein, when processor is refused to use the DMVR mode for decoding the current image block, the current image block does not satisfy at least one of the following conditions: (See this claim construction and reasons for rejection in Claim 1, in reference to these features of the prior art: “a profile can select [enable/require] certain tools as the only tools available for use under that profile from all the tools available in the video compression technology or standard.” Li, Paragraph 51. Thus, if the general merge mode and bidirectional prediction mode that underly the DMVR mode are not enabled, the DMVR mode will also not be enabled. See treatment of these coding modes in Claim 1. Jeong indicates that DMVR mode may be applied when all the coding conditions of the video (picture and block parameters) are met and not applied when one of the coding conditions is not met. Jeong, Paragraphs 472, 482-483. Thus, it is reasonably indicated that if one of the required coding modes or one of the enabling conditions of the DMVR mode is not satisfied, the DMVR mode will not be performed. See treatment of the required modes and enabling conditions below and in Claim 1.)
the current mode of the current image block is the general merge mode; … the picture header control information allows to use the DMVR mode for decoding the current image block … the current image block uses the bidirectional prediction mode, … the display order of one of two reference pictures is previous to the picture to which the current image block belongs, and the display order of the other of the two reference pictures is subsequent to the picture to which the current image block belongs, … and the distances between the two reference pictures and the picture to which the current image block belongs are equal; … weighted weights of the two reference pictures of the current image block are the same; … the size of the current image block satisfies the limiting condition; … sizes of the two reference pictures of the current image block are respectively the same as the size of the picture to which the current image block belongs.” (See reasons for rejection of requiring these conditions in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method according to claim 3, wherein, … when the size of the reference picture of the current image block is different from the size of the picture to which the current image block belongs , it is refused to use a DMVR mode for decoding the current image block; … wherein, when the reference picture of the current image block is a long-term reference picture, it is refused to use the DMVR mode for decoding the current image block; … wherein, when the size of the reference picture of the current image block is different from the size of the picture to which the current image block belongs , and the reference picture of the current image block is a long-term reference picture, it is refused to use the DMVR mode for decoding the current image block; … wherein, when the general merge mode is not used for the current image block, it is refused to use the DMVR mode for decoding the current image block; … wherein, the DMVR mode refers to a mode in which a difference between motion vectors is obtained by searching based on motion compensation values of two reference pictures of the current image block.” (Note that Claim 4 substantively restates the limitation of Claim 3 “wherein, when the current image block does not allow enabling the DMVR mode, the current image block does not satisfy at least one of the following conditions.” This is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 3.)
Regarding Claim 8: “A decoding device comprising a processor and a machine-readable storage medium storing machine-executable instructions executable by the processor, wherein, the processor is configured to execute the machine-executable instructions to implement the method according to claim 1.” (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1. Further, Prior art teaches “In one example, the one or more processors execute a program that is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium.” Li, Paragraph 152.)
Regarding Claim 10: “A non-transitory storage medium having instructions stored thereon, wherein, when executed by a processor, implement the method according to claim 1.” (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1. Further, Prior art teaches “In one example, the one or more processors execute a program that is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium.” Li, Paragraph 152.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200314417 to Abe (“Abe”) teach are similar to Li in teaching various aspects of using the Bidirectional Optical Flow mode under the HEVC and VVC video coding standards.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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 (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483