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 .
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 10, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20220038707 A1 PALURI; Seethal et al. (hereafter Paluri), and further in view of US 20220329822 A1 Chang; Yao-Jen et al. (hereafter Chang ‘822).
Regarding claim 1, Paluri discloses A method for video processing (Fig.56), comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (Fig.1, [79], encoder is the conversion, the predictor in the encoder determines prediction mode for each current block), at least one of: an affine merge candidate of the current video block ([225]-[226]), an affine inter prediction of the current video block ([257]), or an affine advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) of the current video block ([185]), the current video block being coded with an affine mode ([230]); applying a template matching (TM)-based refinement to the at least one of the affine merge candidate, the affine inter, or the affine AMVP ([327]).
Paluri fails to disclose performing the conversion based on the refinement.
However, Chang ‘822 teaches performing the conversion based on the refinement (Fig.2, {122], coding block means converting video 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 method for video processing disclosed by Paluri to include the teaching in the same field of Chang ‘822, in order to improve the operation of video coding technologies, as identified by Chang ‘822.
Regarding claim 2, Chang ‘822 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein at least one motion vector prediction (MVP) of the affine AMVP is refined based on TM ([81]).
Regarding claim 3, Paluri discloses The method of claim 1, wherein at least one motion vector prediction (MVP) of the affine AMVP is refined based on a decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) ([185]).
Regarding claim 4, Chang ‘822 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein for an affine AMVP mode or affine AMVP inter mode, whether the TM-based refinement is applied is based on at least one of: a precision of motion vector (MV), or a precision of motion vector difference (MVD) ([85]).
Regarding claim 5, Chang ‘822 teaches The method of claim 4, wherein if a predetermined precision of MV or MVD is used for the current video block, the TM-based refinement is applied for the current video block ([120], [225]).
Regarding claim 9, Chang ‘822 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein for the affine AMVP or affine inter, if an initial control point motion vector (CPMV) is same as an adjusted CPMV based on the initial CPMV and a motion vector (MV) shift, a TM cost of the MV shift is not determined, wherein the adjusted CPMV is determined by yielding the initial CPMV based on the MV shift and rounding to a precision ([82]-[83], [85]).
Regarding claim 10, Chang ‘822 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein for an affine candidate, at least one control point motion vector (CPMV) is refined based on template matching, and the at least one refined CPMV is used to determine affine motion information for at least one of: the current video block, or a subblock of the current video block ([210]), and wherein if a ratio of a first template matching cost associated with the at least one refined CPMV and a second matching cost associated the at least one CPMV is less than or larger than a threshold, a refined affine candidate based on the at least one refined CPMV replaces the CPMV, wherein the threshold is a constant or is determined during the conversion ([82]-[85], [210]-[213]).
Regarding claim 17, Paluri discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream ([Fig.1).
Regarding claims 18-20, see the rejection for claim 1.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paluri, in view of Chang ‘822, and further in view of US 20210084291 A1 Chang; Tsuishan et al. (hereafter Chang ‘291).
Regarding claim 6, Chang ‘291 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein a first set of motion vector (MV) shifts used for the affine merge is different from a second set of MV shifts used for the affine AMVP or affine inter ([79]-[80], [92]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Paluri, Chang ‘822 and Chang ‘291 before him/her, to modify the method for video processing disclosed by Paluri to include the teaching in the same field of Chang ‘822 and Chang ‘291, in order to improve the operation of video coding technologies, as identified by Chang ‘822, and implement resolution change in a bitstream with regard to those VVC/H.266 coding tools, as identified by Chang ‘291.
Regarding claim 7, Chang ‘291 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein a first motion vector (MV) shift searching procedure used for the affine merge is different from a second MV shift searching procedure used for the affine AMVP or affine inter ([46], [92]).
Regarding claim 8, Chang ‘291 teaches The method of claim 1, wherein a first number of motion vector (MV) shift values used for the affine merge is different from a second number of MV shift values used for the affine AMVP or affine inter ([79]-[80], [92]).
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paluri, in view of Chang ‘822, and further in view of US 20240031595 A1 LI; Guichun et al. (hereafter Li).
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches The method of claim 1, wherein a plurality of control points is refined at a same time based on a target motion vector (MV) shift value shared by the plurality of control points, wherein a plurality of integer MV shift values is traversed, and an integer MV shift value of the plurality of integer MV shift values yielding a least template matching cost is determined as an initial search point for a fractional MV shift value ([282]-[284]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention having all the references Paluri, Chang ‘822 and Li before him/her, to modify the method for video processing disclosed by Paluri to include the teaching in the same field of Chang ‘822 and Li, in order to improve the operation of video coding technologies, as identified by Chang ‘822, and gain coding efficiency, as identified by Li.
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an affine candidate list of the current video block; performing a similarity check for an affine candidate in the affine candidate list to determine to apply a control point motion vector (CPMV) refinement to the affine candidate; and applying the CPMV refinement to the affine candidate ([281]).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches The method of claim 12, wherein candidates in the affine candidate list are traversed in an order, and during the traversing, if a difference between a first candidate in the affine candidate list and a second candidate in the affine candidate list ahead of the first candidate is less than a threshold, the refinement is not applied to the first candidate, wherein the order is based on a template matching cost ([296]-[297]).
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches The method of claim 13, wherein the difference between the first and second candidates being less than the threshold is based on a sum of differences between CPMVs of the first and second candidates being less than the threshold ([360]).
Regarding claim 15, Paluri discloses The method of claim 13, wherein the difference between the first and second candidates being less than the threshold is based on at least one of: a same prediction direction being used for the first and second candidates, or a same reference frame being used for the first and second candidates ([187]).
Regarding claim 16, Chang ‘822 teaches The method of claim 12, wherein candidates ahead of the first candidate in the affine candidate list are refined by template matching ([147]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20230231992 A1, US 20220078407 A1, WO 2020056798 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY Y. LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Friday (8:30 AM- 4:30 PM) 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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/TRACY Y. LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights