DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/29/2026 has been entered.
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 06/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Generally, Examiner notes that 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. Examiner also suggests elaborating on whether the claimed combination of conditions produces unexpected results rather than simply listing conditions that are common in this context or simply preferred by the Applicant.
Applicant argues: “A technical problem to be solved by Applicant's claimed invention is, in the technology of Versatile Video Coding (VVC), how to better reduce the complexity of enabling DMVR mode while maintaining the performance or slightly reduced performance in VVC technology. For the solution of this problem, the limiting conditions are not added unlimitedly.”
Examiner is not clear on how reciting a list of conditions reduces the complexity of enabling DMVR mode. Specification is also silent about the invention addressing such complexity.
Applicant argues: “Applicant's revised claim l defines that 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 ternary tree division, or vertical ternary tree division. Therefore, the current image block in claim 1 is at the CU level, not the CTU level.”
Examiner notes that Applicant fails to clarify a patentable distinction. A CTU is a CU.
Applicant argues: “Applicant's revised claim 1 defines that when the current image block satisfies an enabling condition …”
Examiner notes that the newly amended language is addressed in the updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Li, by comparison, relates to a video decoding method for affine optical flow prediction refinement, … (see paragraphs [0051 ]-[0052] and [0060] of Li ). These paragraphs of Li only describe general statements and have no connection with Li's technical improvements and Applicant's claimed Feature A.”
Examiner notes that this does not address a particular reason for rejection. In the reasons for rejection (below), specific Examiner has cited specific portions of Li that correspond to the specific portions of the claims.
Applicant argues: “those skilled in the art can at most understand selecting a tool based on a profile. However, this profile does not relate to how to control the current CU to enable the BDOF mode or the DMVR mode”
Examiner notes that those skilled in the art can understand that BDOF and DMVR are tools that can be selected. Prior art explicitly states so, as cited in the reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “those skilled in the art can only understand that the CU has two reference pictures, one reference picture being before and one reference picture being after. However, this is different from and unrelated to the type of reference picture (long-term reference picture or short-term reference picture). Most importantly, this paragraph does not relate to the DMVR mode at all, let alone using Applicant's claimed Feature A as an enabling condition for the DMVR mode.”
Examiner notes that this argument does not address a specific reason for rejection and does not cite evidence of understanding in the art.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, Li only mentions that the original pictures to be encoded have sizes, for example, a picture size of " 1920x1080". However, this picture size " 1920x1080" is merely an example of the size of the image before encoding (see paragraph [0004] of Li). Paragraph [0004] of Li is only a general background introduction and has no connection with Li's technical improvements”
Examiner notes that this argument does not address the specific claim language or the specific and cumulative reasons for rejection. The claim requires that the size of reference pictures is the same. A picture size of "1920x1080” is a perfectly good example of this, and it is a common condition in coded video. It is not clear why reference pictures in Li would have different resolution than the required resolution.
Applicant argues: “Furthermore, Li also discloses the POC distances from the current picture to the reference picture and from the collocated picture to the reference picture, and their role in motion vector derivation (see Figure 9 and paragraph [ 1 0 1 ] of Li). However, the POC distance is completely different from whether the reference pictures are long-term reference pictures.”
Examiner notes that this statement concludes that the prior art is different but does not explain why Applicant believes so. The reasons for rejection cite specific reasons for claim construction and for rejection. See updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, Figure 1 6 is a schematic diagram of SbTMVP (sub-block temporal motion vector prediction), which describes how to obtain sub-block motion information from a collocated picture, which has nothing to do with the enabling condition for BDOF”
Examiner notes that prior art illustrates that the claimed modes are ordinarily used under the claimed conditions. This is quite relevant to the determination of obviousness.
Applicant argues: “In fact, Li does not mention the DMVR mode, and accordingly, Li does not provide any teaching or motivation for using the DMVR mode for decoding.”
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). Li describes treatment of modes that are commonly coded with the DMVR mode, which is noted in the Specification and relevant to the claimed features. Jeong and Lee further elaborate on the relevant features available in the VVC.
Applicant argues: “Furthem10re, Li aims to improve the prediction accuracy of affine motion compensation …”
Examiner notes that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues: “The enabling conditions for DMVR disclosed by Jeong are merely conditions related to bidirectional prediction, and have nothing to do with the reference picture type …”
Examiner disagrees. DMVR is a bidirectional prediction mode and it requires particular reference picture types as noted in Jeong and relevant to the claims.
Applicant argues: “Obviously, the enabling conditions for DMVR in Jeong are completely different from the enabling conditions for the DMVR mode defined by Applicant's claimed Feature A.”
Examiner notes that Jeong reads on many claim requirements as cited in the reasons for rejection below. The claimed enabling conditions appear to be common operating conditions for the DMVR mode.
Applicant argues: “Furthermore, as acknowledged by the Examiner on page 1 8 of the Office Action, Jeong does not explicitly teach "a size of a reference picture l the current image block is the same as a size fa picture to which the current image block belongs". Additionally, Jeong is silent about "the reference picture is not a long-term picture"”
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). The relevant features are cited to Li and Lee, they appear to be common conditions in this type of video coding.
Applicant argues regarding the newly amended language: “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 tivo reference pictures and the picture to which the current image block belongs are equal" in Applicant's claimed Feature A.”
Examiner disagrees. This appears to be a common condition and Jeong provides examples as noted in the updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Jeong discloses that motion vector candidates can be determined from the base motion vector in the merge motion vector difference (MMVD) 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 21 of Jeong). This only relates to distance calculation between a motion vector and a motion vector candidate in the merge motion vector difference mode. Jeong does not disclose that "the distances between the two reference pictures and the picture to which the current image block belongs are equal".”
Examiner notes that the MV in the DMVR stands for motion vector. Motion vector distances to the coded picture are directly relevant to the claims. Jeong provides multiple examples of using equal distances. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “In paiiicular, the examiner stated in item 1 2 on page 6 of the Office Action: citing In re Keller: the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated, but rather what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the Examiner considers … Applicant respectfully disagrees.”
Examiner notes that In re Keller is a guiding legal principle, it is not simply an Examiner’s consideration in this case.
Applicant argues: “However, Applicant respectfully notes that Keller never permits an Examiner to forcibly introduce, under the name of "combination", a feature that does not exist in a reference at all. A so-called "combination" necessarily requires that the combined feature has some form of source in the reference --- either express, implied, or at least having a reasonable basis for derivation.”
Examiner notes that Applicant’s mere disagreement with the reasons for rejection does not indicate that Examiner introduced a feature that does not exist in the prior art. See cited features in the reasons for rejection below.
Jeong is silent about the feature "the distances between the two reference pictures and the picture to which the current image block belongs are equal", and the Examiner cannot point out which part of Jeong can establish a reasonable association with this feature. The Examiner can neither point out which part of Jeong discloses this feature, nor can the examiner point out from which teachings of Jeong, those of ordina1y skill in the art would "derive" this feature.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s argument that newly amended claim language was not addressed in the previous office action is not persuasive, because Applicant did not submit this claim language for review in the previous office action. Newly amended language is addressed by the rejection reasons provided below.
Applicant argues: “Even assuming that the combination of Li and Jeong could produce a feature not explicitly disclosed in Jeong, the Examiner still needs to prove that those of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable motivation to make such a combination. In the present case, the technical purposes and enabling conditions of Li's BDOF and Jeong's DMVR are different, and Applicant respectfully submits there is no motivation such a combination.”
Examiner notes that prior art indicates that a variety of enabling conditions can be used in an enabling profile and also indicates that the claimed conditions are common operating conditions in context of BDOF and DMVR modes. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “For instance, Li addresses the problem of affine optical flow prediction accuracy (pixellevel ). Jeong, by comparison, addresses the synergy between MMVD and DMVR (motion vectorlevel). Their enabling conditions and design concepts are completely different. Li's BDOF enabling conditions (e.g. , not in size of 4x8, not affine mode, not ATMVP mode) have no intersection with Jeong's DMVR enabling conditions (e.g. , distance index, MV coordinate signs). A person skilled in the art would have no motivation to "combine" the two to aITive at a new condition that neither discloses individually.”
Examiner notes that Applicant seems to argue against anticipation or a bodily incorporation, however, this does not address the reasons for rejection that indicate obviousness. The references explicitly describe examples of claimed conditions in the context of using enabling profiles in HEVC and VVC standards. It is not clear that listing them in the same paragraph is a patentable invention. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “On page 16 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that it -would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute Li's BDOF mode with Jeong's DA1VR mode, and on pages 9-10 of the Qfllce Action, the examiner asserts that a person skilled in the art would have motivation to substitute Li's BDOF mode with Jeong 's DlvfVR mode because they belong to the "same category ". Applicant respectfully disagrees for at least the following reasons. First, the technical purposes of BDOF and DMVR are different:”
Examiner notes that this argument is a piecemeal analysis of the rejection. Materially, Specification Pages 5-8 and the original claims indicate that the BDOF and DMVR can be subjected to a same or a similar profile of enabling conditions. Jeong confirms that they are also treated similarly under HEVC and VVC and can be used together and thus under the same enabling conditions. Thus, they are not simply different modes in the VVC, they are closely related modes in the VVC and are relevant to the claimed considerations and to the enabling profiles for similar modes in VVC. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, Jeong at most discloses that the BIO mode and the DMVR mode can be operated in the merge motion vector difference mode only when the distance index is equal to or less than a predetermined N (S'ee paragraphs 449 and 468 of Jeong). That is, in Jeong, when the merge motion vector difference mode is used for the current image, the BIO mode and the DMVR mode can be applied under the same conditions. However, Jeong does not teach or disclose that when the merge motion vector difference mode is not used”
Examiner notes that the claim does not limit when the merge motion vector difference mode is used or not used. The conditions in the prior art are known in the context of DMVR and related modes, that is why they are relevant to the claims.
Applicant argues: “Additionally, as described above, Jeong 's enabling conditions for the DMVR mode and Li 's enabling conditions for the BDOF mode are completely different from the enabling conditions for DMVR. of the present invention.”
Examiner notes that the operating conditions are not completely different from the claims, as noted in the reasons for rejection below. Further, the claims using a “comprising” preamble are open to including additional elements in their scope, and therefore, the disclosure of such additional unclaimed elements in the prior art does not negate the rejection of the claimed features as anticipated or obvious over the prior art.
Applicant argues: “Even if Jeong 's enabling conditions for the DMVR mode are replaced or combined with Li 's enabling conditions for the BDOF mode, it is impossible to obtain the enabling conditions for the DMVR of the present 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 suggests that the claimed enabling conditions are common operating conditions for the DMVR and similar modes under the VVC.
Applicant argues: “Lee discloses the logical structure and inter-layer dependencies of layered coding under the HEVC standard, explaining that the base layer must conform to the HEVC configuration (see paragraph /0080/ of Lee). That is, Lee merely discloses general coding logic, which has no relation to the DMVR mode. … [n fact, Lee does not mention the Dl\IVR mode at all throughout its text, let alone using Applicant' s claimed Feature A”
Examiner notes that the present application is in the context of using HEVC and VVC, Lee describes features that used in HEVC and explains specific features of the HEVC that are relevant to the enabling profiles in Li and the present claims. Applicant’s recognition that well known conditions under the HEVC can be applied to a new mode does not amount to a patentable invention without more.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, Lee merely relates to a description of coding logic (see paragraph [0080] of Lee), which has no connection with Li's technical improvements and Applicant's claimed Feature A In fact, both Li and Lee relate to the selection of video coding tools under the HEVC standard. However, it is well known that the HEVC standard does not support the DMVR mode. Therefore, the DMVR mode cannot be selected under the HEVC standard. A person skilled in the art, when seeking to optimize the enabling conditions for DMVR, would have no motivation to refer to the selection of video coding tools under the HEVC standard in Lee.”
Examiner notes that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As cited in the reasons for rejection below, the claimed conditions are well known in connection with similar modes in HEVC and VVC. Applicant’s recognition that well known conditions under the HEVC can be applied to a new mode (provided in VVC) does not amount to a patentable invention without more.
Applicant argues: “Second, "incorporating features" does not mean that the selection logic of other tools (interpolation filters) in HEVC can be applied to a completely new tool (DMVR) in VVC.”
Examiner disagrees. This is exactly what Applicant describes in the Specification, and this is exactly the principle of enabling profiles described in Li. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Lee discloses the adaptive switching of interpolation filters in a scalable coding environment under HEVC, which has nothing to do with DMVR.”
Examiner notes that the reasons for rejection do not rely on Lee disclosures of the adaptive switching of interpolation filters. Lee is cited for examples of profile conditions used in HEVC.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, a person skilled in the art would not combine Li, Jeong, and Lee to achieve the technical solution of the present invention, and even if combined, the technical solution of the present invention cannot be obtained.”
Examiner notes that Li, Jeong, and Lee teach features that can be used in HEVC and VVC, and it appears that the features of “the technical solution of the present invention” were known and available in these standards.
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 § 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 1-4, 8, 10 and 12-13 recite the limitation "in response to determining, by the processor, that the current image block satisfies an enabling condition for allowing to use a Decoder-side Motion Vector Refinement (DMVR) mode for decoding." However, the claim does not perform a determining step, prior to referencing it with “in response to determining.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 similarly recites: “in response to determining, by the processor, that the current image block does not satisfy the enabling condition for the DMVR mode.” However, the claim does not perform a determining step, prior to referencing it with “in response to determining.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12, 2-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 recites: “picture header control information indicates that it is required to use the DMVR mode for decoding the current image block;” however, Specification uses the term “allowed” and does not support the term “required” in this context.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as dependent on Claim 12.
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, 12-13 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,
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 ternary 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.)
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.)
(Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the claimed enabling condition is really a set of conditions that amounts to a profile of conditions. See original Claim 1 and Specification, Pages 2-3. Prior art teaches this feature: “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 allowing to use a Decoder-side Motion Vector Refinement (DMVR) mode for decoding, … selecting by the processor, the DMVR mode (As noted above, “a profile can select [enable/not-enable] certain tools” Li, Paragraphs 51-52. “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.)
[the DMVR mode] to search for a motion vector difference based on motion compensation values of two reference pictures; (“a decoder side MV derivation (DMVR) method will be described. [0466] A DM VR technology is a method of generating a virtual original block by using two reference blocks and generating a new motion vector by using the virtual original block because the two reference blocks are determined by using a motion vector in a bi-direction.” Jeong, Paragraphs 465-466.)
wherein the enabling condition 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.)
sizes of the two reference pictures of the current image block are respectively the same as a size of a picture to which the current image block 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 pictures 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.)
the two reference picture pictures are not long-term reference pictures, and (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. Jeong, teaches” applying the DMVR mode only when the distance index is equal to or less than a specific size,” another words the distance is less than a distance to a long-term reference picture. Jeong, Paragraph 469. 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 bidirectional coding under this profile was known in the art. See statement of motivation above.)
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. … the DMVR mode may be applied only at a search point in which the distance index is 0.” Jeong, Paragraphs 469-470. “For example, when MV _0.x is - 10, an optimal x-coordinate above another reference frame away from a current frame at a same distance is referred to as OPT_x and a sign opposite to a sign of MV _0.x is determined to be 10.” Jeong, Paragraph 479. 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.)
Regarding Claim 2: ”The method according to claim 12, 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 12 , 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 12.” (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 12.” (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 12: “The method according to claim 1, wherein the enabling condition further comprises: (As noted in Claim 1, the claimed enabling condition is a set of conditions that amounts to a profile of conditions. Prior art teaches this feature: “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 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 decoding 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.)
weighted weights of the two reference pictures of the current image block are the same; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the pictures may have the same weights when weights are not applied to the pictures. 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 13: “The method according to claim 1 , wherein the method further comprises:
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 (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 in Claim 1.)
[the DMVR mode] to search for the motion vector difference based on the motion compensation values of the two reference pictures.” (“a decoder side MV derivation (DMVR) method will be described. [0466] A DM VR technology is a method of generating a virtual original block by using two reference blocks and generating a new motion vector by using the virtual original block because the two reference blocks are determined by using a motion vector in a bi-direction.” Jeong, Paragraphs 465-466. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
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.
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
Prosecution Insights