DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not describe the disclosure sufficiently especially in view of the recited claims. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0374528 A1 (“Huang”) in view of US 2020/0366901 A1 (“Ye”).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus (e.g. see video decoder 300), the image decoding method comprising:
acquiring image information including inter prediction mode information (e.g. see prediction information syntax elements, e.g. see at least paragraph [0162]) and residual information (e.g. see decoded quantized transform coefficients by entropy decoding unit 302 in Fig. 14 that are then inverse quantized and inverse transformed in 306 and 308, respectively, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0158]-[0159]) through a bitstream (e.g. see encoded video bitstream in at least Fig. 14);
generating residual samples based on the residual information (e.g. see residual block associated with the current block, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0158]-[0159]);
generating prediction samples of a current block by applying a prediction mode determined based on the inter prediction mode information (e.g. see prediction processing unit 304 generates a prediction block, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0160], [0162]); and
generating reconstructed samples based on the prediction samples and the residual samples (e.g. see reconstruction unit 310 reconstruct the current block, e.g. see at least paragraph [0163]),
wherein the inter prediction mode information includes a first flag related to whether a subblock merge mode is applied (e.g. see merge_subblock_flag 80 in Fig. 12, e.g. see at least paragraph [0115]), a second flag related to whether a regular merge mode is applied (e.g. see triangle_merge_flag 86, e.g. see at least paragraph [0115]) and a third flag related to whether a merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD) is applied (e.g. see mmvd_merge_flag 82 in Fig. 12, e.g. see at least paragraph [0115]),
based on a combined inter-picture merge and intra-picture prediction (CIIP) mode being not enabled (e.g. see CIIP_flag 84 in Fig. 12, e.g. see at least paragraph [0115]), a partitioning prediction mode in which prediction is performed by dividing the current block into two partitions being not enabled (e.g. see triangle_merge_flag 86, e.g. see at least paragraph [0115]), a value of the first flag being equal to 0 (e.g. see merge_subblock_flag 80 equal to 0 in Fig. 12, e.g. see at least paragraph [0115]) and a value of the third flag being equal to 0 (e.g. see mmvd_merge_flag 82 equal to 0 in Fig. 12, e.g. see at least paragraph [0115]), the inter prediction mode information includes merge index information (e.g. see merge index, e.g. see at least paragraph [0077]) indicating one of merge candidates included in a merge candidate list (e.g. see merge candidate list, e.g. see at least paragraph [0076]) generated for the regular merge mode (e.g. see regular merge mode, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0077], [0115]-[0116]),
the prediction samples are generated based on the merge index information (e.g. see prediction processing unit 304 generates a prediction block, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0160], [0162], and see merge index, e.g. see at least paragraph [0077]), and
wherein the regular merge mode is applied to the current block based on that the MMVD is not enabled (e.g. see mmvd_merge_flag 82 equal to 0 in Fig. 12, e.g. see at least paragraph [0115]).
Although Huang discloses wherein the regular merge mode is applied to the current block based on that the MMVD is not enabled, it is noted Huang differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose a value of the general merge flag is 1. Ye however, teaches a value of the general merge flag is 1 (e.g. see when regular flag is false, MMVD flag is false, sub-block flag is false, CIIP flag is false, and triangle flag is false, then the general merge flag must be false, paragraph [0148]; thus, when the regular merge mode is applied to the current block (i.e. equivalent to regular flag is true), as disclosed by Huang, then the general merge flag must be true or equals to 1, as taught by Ye).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Huang and Ye before him/her, to modify the merge mode coding for video coding of Huang with Ye in order to add conformance constraint to avoid broken bitstreams and improve coding efficiency.
Regarding claims 2-3, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0070463 A1, Lee et al., teaching, in at least paragraphs [0348]-[0349], when a merge mode indicator (for example, general_merge_flag) has a first value (for example ‘1’ or True), at least one detailed merge mode information may be obtained including at least one among a regular merge mode indicator, an MMVD mode indicator, a triangular partition mode index, a subblock merge mode indicator and a CIIP mode indicator
US 2022/0053206 A1, Ko et al., teaching, in at least paragraph [0385], Figs. 41, 42A, 43A and 44A, the general_merge_flag
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights