DETAILED ACTION
The communication is in response to the application received August 15, 2025, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and are examined as follows.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/546,916) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0300367 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Abe et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (e.g. a “recording medium” – cf. Abe et al. ¶ [0570]-[0571]) storing instructions which when executed by a processor (e.g. VIDEO SIGNAL PROCESSESSOR ex455 in Abe et al. FIG. 60) cause the processor to perform an encoding method (cf. Abe et al. ¶ [0620]-[0625]) the encoding method (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 2) comprising:
determining to use an inter prediction method for a prediction of a current block in a current picture, the inter prediction method being a function based prediction method with parameters derived based on a template of the current block (cf. Abe et al. ¶ [0091]-[0092] and ¶ [0391], noting that Abe et al. utilize local illumination correction [LIC] as an inter prediction method for a prediction of a current block in a current picture, the inter prediction method being a function based prediction method. The parameters used in LIC, A and B [ ¶ [0391] lines 11-16 ], are derived using “an encoded surrounding reference region which neighbors to the left of or above the current block”. See, for example, ¶ [0391] lines 4-5 and FIG. 39).
constructing a candidate list including one or more coded blocks that are associated with the current block, a coded block associated with the current block being a candidate that provides coded information of the inter prediction method for the prediction of the current block (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 20, FIG. 48, FIG. 49, ¶ [0268]-[0271], ¶ [0380], ¶ [0483] lines 11-18. A “MV candidate list” [ ¶ [0269] and ¶ [0271] ] or “prediction candidate list for the merge mode” [ ¶ [0483] lines 11-18 ] is constructed [cf. step Sh_1 of FIG. 20 and step S1002 of FIG. 48] from “a plurality of encoded blocks temporally or spatially surrounding” [i.e. associated with] the current block”. See, for example, ¶ [0271]. Each candidate on the candidate list provides coded information [ i.e. an associated LicFlg – cf. FIG. 49 ] of the inter prediction method for the prediction [ i.e. local illumination correction – cf. ¶ [0380] ] of the current block);
selecting a first coded block from the candidate list, the first coded block being coded with first coded information of the inter prediction method (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 21, FIG. 49, ¶ [0271], ¶ [0483] lines 11-18, and ¶ [0502]. One “candidate MVP from the candidate MVP list for merge mode” is selected – cf. ¶ [0502]. The candidate MVP corresponds to a first coded block [i.e. a “MV of encoded block”] – cf. FIG. 21 step Sh_1 and ¶ [0271] ] – which is coded with first coded information [i.e. LicFlg] of the inter prediction method [i.e. local illumination correction]. See, for example, FIG. 49.);
inheriting the first coded information of the inter prediction method from the first coded block to the current block (cf. Abe et al. ¶ [0502], noting that the first coded information of the inter prediction method [ i.e. LicFlg ] “associated with the selected candidate MVP” [i.e. the first coded block] is inherited by the current block [i.e. “sets the LicFlg information as the LicFlg information of the current CU”]);
deriving parameters of a function that is used in the inter prediction method according to the first coded information (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 39, ¶ [0379]-[0381], ¶ [0391], and ¶ [0503]. In accordance the first coded information [ i.e. LicFlg – cf. ¶ [0503] ], the parameters, A and B, used in local illumination correction, or LIC (i.e. “a function that is used in the inter prediction method”), are derived. See FIG. 39 and ¶ [0371].)
reconstructing samples of the current block according to the parameters of the function (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 2, FIG. 39 and ¶ [0132]-[0136] and ¶ [0384]. The prediction block is obtained through the application of the local illumination correction function [ ¶ [0391] lines 13-16 ] with the derived parameters, A and B – cf. ¶ [0384]. A reconstructed block [or sample] is formed by combining the prediction block with the decoded residual – cf. ¶ [0135]-[0136] and FIG. 2 Steps Sa_7 to Sa_8.)
encoding the current block into coded information in a video media bitstream according to the reconstructed samples of the current block (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 1, FIG. 2, ¶ [0136] and ¶ [0179]-[0180], noting that, in Step Sa_8 of FIG. 2, the current block is reconstructed as “a reconstructed image (also referred to as a reconstructed block or a decoded image block) … In this way, the reconstructed image is generated”. ENTROPY ENCODER 110 of FIG. 1 entropy encodes “the current block into coded information in a video media bitstream” – cf. ¶ [0179]-[0180] – according to the reconstructed samples of the current block”); and
transmitting the video media bitstream (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 60 and ¶ [0624] lines 10-11. “[V]ideo data may be transmitted” via transmitter/receiver ex451).
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Abe et al. discloses an apparatus for video decoding (e.g. decoder 200 shown in Abe et al. FIG. 41), comprising processing circuitry (e.g. “one or more dedicated electronic circuits” – cf. Abe et al. ¶ [0411]).
Note that the disclosure of Abe et al. regarding candidate list construction and LIC (i.e. a function based prediction method) applies to both encoding and decoding processes. See, for example, Abe et al. ¶ [0483] lines 1-2 and ¶ [0395]. Further note that the limitation of claim 2 reciting “construct a candidate list including one or more coded blocks that are associated with a current block, a coded block associated with the current block being a candidate that provides coded information of a function based prediction method for a prediction of the current block, the function based prediction method using a function with parameters derived based on a template of the current block” is substantially the same, or at least within the scope of, the limitations of claim 1 reciting “determining to use an inter prediction method for a prediction of a current block in a current picture, the inter prediction method being a function based prediction method with parameters derived based on a template of the current block” and “constructing a candidate list including one or more coded blocks that are associated with the current block, a coded block associated with the current block being a candidate that provides coded information of the inter prediction method for the prediction of the current block”. The remaining limitations of claim 2 are recited in a substantially identical manner as the corresponding limitations of claim 1. As such, the rationales set forth above with respect to claim 1 are applicable to the corresponding limitations recited in claim 2. Therefore, the decoding apparatus set forth in claim 2 is anticipated by Abe et al. for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIM 3, as shown above, Abe et al. teaches all limitations of claim 2. Abe et al. further teaches that:
the one or more coded blocks comprise at least one of an adjacent coded block, a non-adjacent coded block, and a coded block with coded information within a buffer (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 21., FIG. 26A, ¶ [0276], and ¶ [0311]. FIG. 21 and FIG. 26A depict, respectively, “spatially neighboring MV predictors which are MVs of a plurality of encoded blocks located spatially surrounding a current block” [ ¶ [0276] ] and “encoded block A (left), block B (upper), block C (upper-right), block D (lower-left), and block E (upper-left) which neighbor the current block” [ ¶ [0311] ] – i.e. adjacent coded blocks from which the candidate list is constructed).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, as shown above, Abe et al. teaches all limitations of claim 2. Abe et al. further teaches that the:
function based prediction method is one of local illumination compensation (LIC), cross component linear model (CCLM), multi-model linear model (MMLM), convolutional cross-component model (CCCM), and gradient linear model (GLM) (cf. Abe et al. ¶ [0106]-[0107]. Since the limitations of claim 3 are presented as a disjunction, the disclosure in Abe et al. that the function based prediction method is local illumination compensation (LIC) falls within the scope of the subject matter set forth in claim 3).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, as shown above, Abe et al. teaches all limitations of claim 2. Abe et al. further teaches that:
the function based prediction method is an inter prediction method (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 39, FIG. 48, and ¶ [0389]-[0395], noting that LIC is an inter-prediction method [ ¶ [0389]-[0392] ], which is applied at both encoder-side and the decoder-side [ ¶ [0395]]) and the processing circuitry is configured to:
select the first coded block from the candidate list based on inter prediction mode information of the first coded block and the current block (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 31B, FIG. 44 Step Sr_1, ¶ [0271], ¶ [0400], ¶ [0341]-[0344], and ¶ [0445]. The “method or a mode for generating a prediction … may be determined based on, for example, a prediction parameter, etc.” [ cf. FIG. 44 Step Sr_1 and ¶ [0445] ]. The prediction parameter [i.e. inter prediction mode information] “may include (i) a selection prediction signal (for example, a motion vector, a prediction type, or a prediction mode used by intra predictor 124 or inter predictor 126), or (ii) an optional index, a flag, or a value which is based on a prediction process performed in each of intra predictor 124, inter predictor 126, and prediction controller 128, or which indicates the prediction process”. See ¶ [0400]. In the case of the disclosed merge mode [ ¶ [0271] ], candidate [i.e. the first coded block from the candidate list] selection is based on a prediction parameter including “information such as MVs”.).
REGARDING CLAIM 6, as shown above, Abe et al. teaches all limitations of claim 5. Abe et al. further teaches that:
the inter prediction mode information includes at least one of a prediction mode, a prediction direction, a reference list, and a reference index (cf. Abe et al. ¶ [0400] and ¶ [0341]-[0344]. The prediction parameter [i.e. inter prediction mode information] “may include (i) a selection prediction signal (for example, a motion vector, a prediction type, or a prediction mode used by intra predictor 124 or inter predictor 126), or (ii) an optional index, a flag, or a value which is based on a prediction process performed in each of intra predictor 124, inter predictor 126, and prediction controller 128, or which indicates the prediction process”. See ¶ [0400]. Furthermore, the disclosed DMVR method additionally utilizes inter prediction mode information that includes “a first reference picture (L0) which is an encoded picture in the L0 direction” and “a second reference picture (L1) which is an encoded picture in the L1 direction” [ ¶ [0342] ]. Note that L0 and L1, as used in Abe et al., constitute reference indices to reference pictures.).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, as shown above, Abe et al. teaches all limitations of claim 6. Abe et al. further teaches:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical prediction mode (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 44, FIG. 45, and ¶ [0250], ¶ [0274], and ¶ [0445]. A candidate [i.e. a first code coded block from the candidate list] is selected according to the determined prediction mode [cf. ¶ [0445] and FIG. 44 Step Sr_1], which include “[m]odes in which motion information is encoded among the modes include the normal inter mode, the merge mode, the affine mode (specifically, an affine inter mode and an affine merge mode), etc.” [ ¶ [0250] ]. In merge mode [ ¶ [0274] ], the decoder “selects a prediction candidate from the prediction candidate list for the merge mode when a current block (hereinafter, also referred to as a current CU) is to be processed in the merge mode” [ ¶ [0483] lines 19-22]).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, Abe et al. discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform an encoding method, comprising steps that are identical to those of the method of video encoding set forth in claim 15. As such, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 1 are applicable to the corresponding steps recited in claim 15. Therefore, Abe et al. anticipates the method of video encoding of claim 15, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIM 16, note that the disclosure of Abe et al. regarding candidate list construction applies to both encoding and decoding processes. See, for example, Abe et al. ¶ [0483] lines 1-2. Further note that claim 16 sets forth limitations that are substantially identical to those set forth in claim 3. As such, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 3 are applicable to the corresponding limitations recited in claim 16. Therefore, Abe et al. anticipates the method of video encoding of claim 16, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 3.
REGARDING CLAIM 17, note that the disclosure of Abe et al. regarding LIC applies to both encoding and decoding processes. See, for example, Abe et al. ¶ [0395]. Further note that claim 17 sets forth limitations that are substantially identical to those set forth in claim 4. As such, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 4 are applicable to the corresponding limitations recited in claim 17. Therefore, Abe et al. anticipates the method of video encoding of claim 17, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 4.
REGARDING CLAIM 18, note that the disclosure of Abe et al. regarding candidate selection applies to both encoding and decoding processes. See, for example, Abe et al. ¶ [0483] lines 1-2. Further note that claim 18 sets forth limitations that are substantially identical to those set forth in claim 5. As such, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 5 are applicable to the corresponding limitations recited in claim 18. Therefore, Abe et al. anticipates the method of video encoding of claim 18, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 5.
REGARDING CLAIM 19, note that the disclosure of Abe et al. regarding candidate selection applies to both encoding and decoding processes. See, for example, Abe et al. ¶ [0483] lines 1-2. Further note that claim 19 sets forth limitations that are substantially identical to those set forth in claim 6. As such, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 6 are applicable to the corresponding limitations recited in claim 19. Therefore, Abe et al. anticipates the method of video encoding of claim 19, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 6.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention
Claims 7, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20230300367 A1), in view of Gao et al. (H. Gao, X. Chen, S. Esenlik, J. Chen and E. Steinbach, "Decoder-Side Motion Vector Refinement in VVC: Algorithm and Hardware Implementation Considerations," in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 3197-3211, Aug. 2021).
REGARDING CLAIM 7, note that, for the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation “select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical prediction mode, an identical prediction direction, an identical reference list, and an identical reference index” to mean that, when the first coded block is selected, the selected coded block and the current block share the recited prediction mode, prediction direction, reference list, and reference index. This interpretation is consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure, including the processes illustrated in FIG. 9 and FIG. 10, wherein a coded block is selected and coded information is inherited from the selected block to the current block.
As shown above, Abe et al. teaches all limitations set forth in claim 6. Abe et al. further teaches that the disclosed decoder is configured to:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical prediction mode, an identical prediction direction, and an identical reference index (cf. Abe et al. FIG. 31A, FIG. 31B, and ¶ [0337]-[0344]. Selection [cf. FIG. 31A Step Sl_4 and FIG. 31B] of the final MV candidate [i.e. first coded block] from the candidate list occurs when the current block and selected candidate share an identical prediction mode [e.g. DMVR with merge mode – cf. ¶ [0338] ], an identical prediction direction [L0 direction or L1 direction – cf.
¶ [0342] ], and an identical reference index [either L0 or L1, indicating reference picture L0 or reference picture L1, respectively – cf. ¶ [0342] ], where reference picture L0 “is an encoded picture in the L0 direction” and reference picture L1 “is an encoded picture in the L1 direction” [ ¶ [0342] ]. ).
However, Abe et al. does not expressly teach that the disclosed decoder is configured to:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical prediction mode, an identical prediction direction, an identical reference list, and an identical reference index.
In contrast, Gao et al., from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. video coding utilizing DMVR with merge mode) teaches DMVR that includes:
selecting the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical reference list (cf. Gao et al. Fig. 1, Section I, ¶ 2 lines 13-15, Section II, ¶ 1 lines 3-5, and page 3199 Subsection A. ¶ 1 lines 1-5 and lines 14-16, noting that “the merge mode directly copies the best candidate motion information” [cf. Section I, ¶ 2 lines 13-15], which includes the corresponding reference list [either L0 or L1 – cf. Fig. 1 and page 3199 Subsection A. ¶ 1 lines 1-5], whereupon the copied motion information is “directly applied to the current block” [page 3199 Subsection A. ¶ 1 lines 14-16]. Because the motion information is copied from the selected candidate [i.e. the first coded block] to the current block, the selected candidate and the current block share identical motion information, including, inter alia, an identical reference list.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the DMVR with merge mode method used in the decoder of Abe et al. to incorporate L0 and L1 reference list information into candidate selection and to copy that additional motion information to the current block, in accordance to the DMVR with merge mode method taught by Gao et al., in order to utilize the known reference list data structures, L0 and L1, found in video compression standards, such as HEVC and VVC (cf. Gao et al. Section I ¶ 2 lines 8-11, page 3198 ¶ 3 line 2, Section II ¶ 1 lines 1-6, and page 3199 Subsection A ¶ 1 lines 1). Modifying Abe et al. with Gao et al. in the foregoing manner would yield a decoder configured to:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical prediction mode, an identical prediction direction, an identical reference list, and an identical reference index.
as required by claim 7.
REGARDING CLAIM 9, note that, for the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation “select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical prediction mode, and one or more identical reference lists” to mean that, when the first coded block is selected, the selected coded block and the current block share the recited prediction mode and one or more reference lists. This interpretation is consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure, including the processes illustrated in FIG. 9 and FIG. 10, wherein a coded block is selected and coded information is inherited from the selected block to the current block.
As shown above, Abe et al. teaches all limitations set forth in claim 6. Abe et al. further teaches:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical prediction mode (e.g. DMVR with merge mode – cf. ¶ [0337]-[0344]. This limitation was previously addressed in the discussion above regarding claim 7. Please refer to discussion above regarding claim 7.).
However, Abe et al. does not expressly teach that the disclosed decoder is configured to:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical prediction mode, and one or more identical reference lists.
In contrast, Gao et al., from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. video coding utilizing DMVR with merge mode) teaches DMVR that includes:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical prediction mode and one or more identical reference lists (As shown above with respect to claim 7, Gao et al. discloses DMVR with merge mode wherein candidate [i.e. first coded block] selection occurs when the candidate and current block share a corresponding reference list, either L0 or L1. An identical reference list falls within the scope of one or more identical reference lists recited in claim 9. Please refer to the discussion above regarding claim 7.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the DMVR with merge mode method used in the decoder of Abe et al. to incorporate L0 and L1 reference list information into candidate selection and to copy that additional motion information to the current block, in accordance to the DMVR method disclosed by Gao et al., in order to utilize the known reference list data structures, L0 and L1, found in video compression standards, such as HEVC and VVC (cf. Gao et al. Section I ¶ 2 lines 8-11, page 3198 ¶ 3 line 2, Section II ¶ 1 lines 1-6, and page 3199 Subsection A. ¶ 1 lines 1). Modifying Abe et al. with Gao et al. in the foregoing manner would yield a decoder configured to:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block and the first coded block share an identical prediction mode and one or more identical reference lists.
as required by claim 9.
REGARDING CLAIM 20, note that the disclosure of Abe et al. regarding candidate selection applies to both encoding and decoding processes. See, for example, Abe et al. ¶ [0483] lines 1-2 and Gao et al. Section II ¶ 1 lines 3-5. Further note that claim 20 sets forth limitations that are substantially identical to those set forth in claim 7. As such, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 6 are applicable to the corresponding limitations recited in claim 20. Therefore, the method of video encoding of claim 20 is obvious, in view of the teachings of Abe et al. and Gao et al. for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 7.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0300367 A1), in view of Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0038720 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 10, note that, for the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation “select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block is a uni-prediction block with a first reference list, and the first reference list is available at the first coded block” to mean that selection of the first coded block is performed when the current block is to be predicted using a first reference list, and the selected first coded block utilizes that same first reference list, such that the first reference list is available at the first coded block.
As shown above, Abe et al. teaches all limitations set forth in claim 6.
However, Abe et al. does not expressly teach that the disclosed decoder is configured to:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block is a uni-prediction block with a first reference list, and the first reference list is available at the first coded block.
In contrast, Hashimoto et al., from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. predictive video coding utilizing merge modes), discloses a video decoding apparatus configured to:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block is a uni-prediction block with a first reference list, and the first reference list is available at the first coded block (cf. Hashimoto et al. FIG. 9(a), FIG. 12, FIG. 16, FIG. 9, ¶ [0098] lines 4-8, ¶ [0110]-[0111], and ¶ [0163] lines 5-12. Hashimoto et al. discloses that “prediction list utilization flags predFlagL0 and predFlagL1 are flags to indicate whether or not reference picture lists referred to as L0 list and L1 list respectively are used” [¶ [0098] lines 4-8]. For example, when only predFlagL0 == 1 [i.e. in the case of uni-prediction – cf. ¶ [0110]-[0111] ], the selected merge candidate [i.e. the first coded block], indicated by merge_idx [cf. FIG. 9(a)], specifies uni-prediction using the reference list L0 [i.e. the first reference list], such that the first reference list is available at the first coded block.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the decoder disclosed by Abe et al. to so that merge candidate selection occurs when the current block is a uni-prediction block with a first reference list, and the first reference list is available at the first coded block, as taught by Hashimoto et al., in order to accommodate “uni-prediction (uni-pred)” by using prediction information associated with the available reference list (cf. Hashimoto et al. ¶ [0012] and ¶ [0017]), thus enabling a valid prediction for uni-prediction blocks.
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Abe et al. and Hashimoto et al., as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest all limitations of claim 10. Hashimoto et al. further teaches:
inheriting only the first coded information of the inter prediction method of the first reference list from the first coded block to the current block (cf. Hashimoto et al. FIG. 9, FIG. 12, ¶ [0134], and ¶ [0163], noting that “merge candidate selection unit 30362 selects the merge candidate mergeCandList[merge_idx] to which the merge index merge_idx is assigned among the merge candidates included in the merge candidate list, as the inter prediction parameter [i.e. the first coded information of the inter prediction method] of the target block” – cf. FIG. 9 and ¶ [0134]. "In a case that one of the prediction list utilization flags (predFlagL0 or predFlagLl ) is 1 (uni-prediction) and no weighted prediction is used, processing by the following equation ... preformed.”
P
r
e
d
[
x
]
[
y
]
=
C
l
i
p
3
(
0
,
(
1
≪
b
i
t
D
e
p
t
h
)
-
1
,
(
P
r
e
d
L
X
[
x
]
[
y
]
+
o
f
f
s
e
t
1
)
≫
s
h
i
f
t
1
)
[cf. ¶ [0163] lines 5-12]. Note that
P
r
e
d
L
X
[
x
]
[
y
]
is the prediction sample for the target [i.e. current] block associated with prediction list [i.e. a first reference list] LX, where X is either 0 or 1, as indicated by predFlagL0 == 1 or predFlagL1 == 1, respectively. Thus, only the first coded information of the inter prediction method of the first reference list [prediction list LX] from the first coded block [the selected merge candidate] to the current block)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the decoder obtained by combining Abe et al. and Hashimoto et al., as described above, so that the current block inherits the motion information corresponding to one of the reference lists L0 or L1, in order to accommodate “uni-prediction (uni-pred)” by using prediction information associated with the available reference list (cf. Hashimoto et al. ¶ [0012] and ¶ [0017]), thus enabling a valid prediction for uni-prediction blocks.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20230300367 A1), in view of Chen et al. (Chen, J. et al. Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 17th Meeting: Brussels, BE, 7–17 DOCUMENT: JVET-Q2002-v3 January 2020).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, note that, for the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation “select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block is a uni-prediction block with a first reference list and a first reference index, and the first coded block is a bi-prediction block with the first reference list and the first reference index being used” to mean that selection of the first coded block is performed when the current block is to be predicted using a first reference list and a first reference index, and the selected first coded block is a bi-prediction block that utilizes the same first reference list and first reference index, such that the corresponding inter-prediction information associated with the first reference list and first reference index is available from the selected first coded block.
As shown above, Abe et al. teaches all limitations set forth in claim 6.
However, Abe et al. does not expressly teach that the disclosed decoder is configured to:
select the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block is a uni-prediction block with a first reference list and a first reference index, and the first coded block is a bi-prediction block with the first reference list and the first reference index being used.
In contrast, Chen et al., from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. predictive video coding utilizing merge modes) teaches merge mode inter-prediction using geometric partitioning mode (GPM) which includes:
selecting the first coded block from the candidate list when the current block is a uni-prediction block with a first reference list and a first reference index, and the first coded block is a bi-prediction block with the first reference list and the first reference index being used (cf. Chen et al. pages 34 Section 3.4 ¶ 1, page 38 lines 21-30, and pages 53-55 Section 3.4.11. In GPM, the current block is subject to a un-prediction motion constraint [cf. page 54 lines 1-3]. A merge candidate [i.e. first coded block], selected from the merge candidate list, may contain motion information for either uni-prediction or bi-prediction [cf. page 38 lines 23-27]. As shown in Figure 38, only “the LX motion vector of the n-th extended merge candidate, with X equal to the parity of n, is used as the n-th uni-prediction motion vector” [cf. page 54 lines 19-21], so that. when the selected merge candidate is a bi-prediction block, the un-prediction motion information associated with reference list LX [i.e. a first reference list], as well as the reference index [i.e. a first reference index – cf. ] associated with the LX motion vectors, Mv0 or Mv1 [cf. page 55 line 20], are being used.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the decoder disclosed by Abe et al. to utilize GPM, as taught by Chen et al., so that “[e]ach part of a geometric partition in the CU [or current block] is inter-predicted using its own motion” (cf. Chen et al. page 54 line 1).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Abe et al. and Chen et al., as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest all limitations of claim 12. Chen et al. further teaches:
inheriting only the first coded information of the inter prediction method at the first reference list and the first reference index from the first coded block to the current block (cf. Chen et al. page 34 Section 3.4 and page 54 Section 3.4.11.1. As discussed above, in merge mode, motion information [i.e. the first coded information of the inter-prediction method] from the selected merge candidate [i.e. the first coded block] is copied to, or inherited by, the current block. See also Chen et al. page 34 lines 34-36. Motion information may include, inter alia, the LX motion vector and its associated reference index [cf. page 34 lines 30-32 and page 54 line 2]. As shown in Figure 38, for the n-th merge candidate, only the LX motion vector is used in the uni-prediction MV selection, where LX [i.e. a first reference list] denotes one of the reference lists, L0 or L1 . See page 54 lines 19-23.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the decoder disclosed by Abe et al. to utilize GPM, as taught by Chen et al., so that “[e]ach part of a geometric partition in the CU [or current block] is inter-predicted using its own motion” (cf. Chen et al. page 54 line 1).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, for the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the limitation “the current block is a uni-prediction block and a first reference list is used by the current block” to mean that the current block is to be predicted using a first reference list. The Examiner further interprets “inherit, when the first reference list is available at the first coded block” to mean that the selected first coded block utilizes the same first reference list, such that the correspond inter-prediction information is available for inheritance by the current block. Similarly, “inherit, when the first reference list is not available at the first coded block” is interpreted to mean that the selected first coded block does not utilize the first reference list but instead utilizes a second reference lists, such that the corresponding inter-prediction information associated with the second reference list is inherited by the current block.
As shown above, Abe et al. teaches all limitations set forth in claim 6.
However, Abe et al. does not expressly teach that the:
the current block is a uni-prediction block and a first reference list is used by the current block, the processing circuitry is configured to:
inherit, when the first reference list is available at the first coded block, the first coded information of the inter prediction method at the first reference list from the first coded block to the current block; and
inherit, when the first reference list is not available at the first coded block, the first coded information of the inter prediction method at a second reference list from the first coded block to the current block.
In contrast, Chen et al., from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. predictive video coding utilizing merge modes) teaches merge mode inter-prediction using geometric partitioning mode (GPM) wherein:
the current block is a uni-prediction block and a first reference list is used by the current block (cf. Chen et al. page 54 lines 1-3 and lines 19-20. Subject to a uni-prediction motion constraint [page 54 line 3], the current block is inter-predicted using uni-prediction such that each partition has one motion vector and one reference index, associated with a single reference list [i.e. first reference list], namely LX, where X is either 0 or 1 [cf. page 54 lines 19-20]), the processing circuitry is configured to:
inherit, when the first reference list is available at the first coded block, the first coded information of the inter prediction method at the first reference list from the first coded block to the current block (cf. Chen et al. page 34 Section 3.4 ¶ 1 and page 54 Section 3.4.11.1. As discussed above, in merge mode, motion information [i.e. the first coded information of the inter-prediction method from the selected merge candidate [i.e. the first coded block] ] is copied to, or inherited by, the current block. See also Chen et al. page 34 lines 34-36. In GPM, the inherited motion information includes the LX motion vector, corresponding to the selected merge candidate [cf. page 54 Figure 38 and lines 19-23], where LX indicates either the reference list L0 or reference list L1. Either list may constitute the first reference list recited in claim 14).
inherit, when the first reference list is not available at the first coded block, the first coded information of the inter prediction method at a second reference list from the first coded block to the current block (cf. Chen et al. page 34 Section 3.4 ¶ 1 and page 54 Section 3.4.11.1 lines 21-23. “In case a corresponding LX motion vector of the n-the extended merge candidate does not exist” [i.e. when the first reference list is not available at the first coded block], “the L(1 − X) motion vector” [i.e. the first coded information of the inter prediction method at a second reference list] “of the same candidate is used instead as the uni-prediction motion vector”, where X is either 0 or 1, denoting the reference lists L0 and L1, respectively.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the decoder disclosed by Abe et al. to utilize GPM, as taught by Chen et al., and to provide a fallback mechanism as just described, so that “[e]ach part of a geometric partition in the CU [or current block] is inter-predicted using its own motion” (cf. Chen et al. page 54 line 1) and to ensure that valid un-prediction motion information is available even when the default reference list unavailable (cf. Chen et al. page 54 lines 21-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
Chujoh et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20230143900 A1, VIDEO DECODING APPARATUS, VIDEO CODING APPARATUS, VIDEO DECODING METHOD, AND VIDEO CODING METHOD. Published May 11, 2023
Relevance: Chujoh et al. disclose merge mode in video coding involving the construction of a candidate list, the selection of a merge candidate from that list, and the inheritance of motion information – which may include, inter alia, reference list information, reference indices, and flags indicating uni-prediction or bi-prediction – from the selected merge candidate by the current block. In particular, “inter_pred_idc is a value indicating the types and number of reference pictures, and takes any value of PRED_L0, PRED_L1, or PRED_BI. PRED_L0 and PRED_L1 indicate uni-predictions which use one reference picture managed in the L0 list and one reference picture managed in the L1 list, respectively. PRED_BI indicates a bi-prediction which uses two reference pictures managed in the L0 list and the L1 list” (¶ [0126]). When only one of PRED_L0 or PRED_L1 equals 1, the prediction associated with the current block is derived from the associated reference list – either L0 or L1, respectively – alone.
Bordes et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20220159290 A1, LOCAL ILLUMINATION COMPENSATION FOR VIDEO ENCODING OR DECODING. Published: May 19, 2022.
Relevance: Bordes et al. disclose the use of local illumination compensation (LIC) in video coding, wherein the scale and offset used in LIC are derived using a template of reconstructed samples neighboring a coding block. The use of LIC is indicated by a so-called LIC flag, which, in merge mode, is inherited by the current block from the signal merge candidate.
Chen et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20190268611 A1, Intelligent Mode Assignment In Video Coding. Published: August 29, 2019.
Relevance: Chen et al. disclose the use of various tools for video coding, including LIC. Chen et al. further disclose the inheritance of motion information from a merge candidate, where that motion information may include, inter alia, reference lists, reference indices, and a flag indicating the use of LIC. According to Chen et al., LIC parameters are derived using samples from the “top neighboring side” and the “left neighboring side” (effectively, a template) of the CU.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SIANGCHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0982. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 10:00am-06:00pm and Tu 09:00am-05:00pm EST.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/K S/
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JAMIE J ATALA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights