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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed on April 22, 2026 and January 20, 2026.The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., US 20210076061 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Lin”) in view of Xiu et al., WO 2019089864 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method of decoding video data (Lin: FIG. 10 is a flowchart that shows a method for processing a current block with overlapped sub-block motion compensation. ¶[0055]), the method comprising: determining a first partition and a second partition for a current block of video data (Lin: In Step S1020, the video encoding or decoding system partitions the current block into overlapped sub-blocks. ¶[0066]); performing an overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) process for the first partition and for the second partition to generate OBMC adjusted samples (Lin: Each overlapped sub-block in the current block is motion compensated by the sub-block MV(s) to derive an initial predictor from a reference picture in Step S1040. ¶ [0066]. Directional OBMC For a CU coded in sub-block mode, conventional OBMC is applied to each sub-block in four directions. ¶ [0067]); performing blending on the OBMC adjusted samples to generate final prediction samples for the current block (Lin: The video encoding or decoding system then derives a final predictor for each overlapped region by blending the initial predictors of the overlapped region in Step S1050. ¶ [0066]); and decoding the current block of video data based on the final prediction samples to generate a decoded block (Lin: In Step S1060, the video encoding or decoding system encodes or decodes the current block based on the final predictors of the overlapped regions. ¶ [0066]).
Lin does not explicitly disclose OBMC adjusted samples.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xiu discloses adjusted samples (Xu: OBMC-based motion compensation may be applied to adjust samples. ¶ [0054]).
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 teachings of Lin such that the samples are adjusted samples, as taught by Xiu, in order to reduce blocking artifacts and improve prediction accuracy (Xiu: ¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a first set of motion information for the first partition (Lin: A sub-block MV is determined for each overlapped sub-block…in Step S1030, ¶[0066]); determining a second set of motion information for the second partition (Lin: Step 1030, ¶[0066]); generating a first set of prediction samples for the first partition based on the first set of motion information (Lin: Step 1040, ¶[0066]); and generating a second set of prediction samples for the second partition based on the second set of motion information (Lin: Step 1040, ¶[0066]).
Regarding claim 4, Lin does not disclose the method of claim 3, wherein performing the OBMC process comprises: performing the OBMC process on the first set of prediction samples to generate first OBMC adjusted samples; and performing the OBMC process on the second set of prediction samples to generate second OBMC adjusted samples, wherein the OBMC adjusted samples include the first OBMC adjusted samples and the second OBMC adjusted samples.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xiu discloses wherein performing the OBMC process comprises: performing the OBMC process on the first set of prediction samples (Xiu: Sub-block motion information may be used, for example, to generate prediction samples for a coding unit. i.e., first set of prediction samples. ¶ [0029]) to generate first OBMC adjusted samples (Xiu: OBMC-based motion compensation may be applied to adjust samples. ¶ [0054]); and performing the OBMC process on the second set of prediction samples to generate second OBMC adjusted samples (Xiu: ¶ [0029]), wherein the OBMC adjusted samples include the first OBMC adjusted samples and the second OBMC adjusted samples (Xiu: ¶ [0054]).
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 teachings of Lin with performing the OBMC process on the first set of prediction samples to generate first OBMC adjusted samples; and performing the OBMC process on the second set of prediction samples to generate second OBMC adjusted samples, wherein the OBMC adjusted samples include the first OBMC adjusted samples and the second OBMC adjusted samples, as taught by Xiu, in order to reduce blocking artifacts and improve prediction accuracy (Xiu: ¶[0054]).
Regarding claim 5, in discloses the method of claim 4, wherein performing blending on the OBMC adjusted samples to generate the final prediction samples for the current block comprises: performing blending on the first OBMC adjusted samples and the second OBMC adjusted samples to generate the final prediction samples (Lin: ¶¶ [0027], [0065]).
Regarding claim 6, Lin discloses the method of claim 5, further comprising: determining blending weights for the blending based on neighboring reconstructed sample information, the first set of motion information for the first partition, and the second set of motion information (Lin: ¶¶ [0027], [0065]).
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein performing the OBMC process for the first partition and for the second partition to generate the OBMC adjusted samples comprises: performing the OBMC process on prediction sample values at a boundary in the first partition and in the second partition to generate the OBMC adjusted samples (Lin: ¶¶ [0004]- [0005], and [0022]).
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses the method of claim 7, wherein performing the OBMC process for the first partition and for the second partition to generate the OBMC adjusted samples further comprises: performing the OBMC process on prediction sample values at subblock boundaries based on the first partition or the second partition being coded using bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) or decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) (Lin: BDOF. ¶¶ [0024], [0094], DMVR ¶ [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Lin does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: displaying a picture that includes the decoded block. (Lin: output of the decoder. Fig. 14).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Xiu discloses displaying a picture that includes the decoded block (Xiu: Display 2024 ¶ [0027]).
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 teachings of Lin with displaying a picture that includes the decoded block, as taught by Xiu, in order to visually reproduce the decoded bitstream.
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 (Lin: ¶ [0098]).
Regarding claim 12, claim 3 is substantially similar to claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, claim 4 is substantially similar to claim 13. Therefore, claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, claim 5 is substantially similar to claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 6 is substantially similar to claim 15. Therefore, claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 16, claim 7 is substantially similar to claim 16. Therefore, claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 17. Therefore, claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 (Lin: ¶¶ [0098]- [0099]).
Regarding claim 19, claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 (Lin: ¶¶ [0098]- [0099]).
Regarding claim 20, claim 1 is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 (Lin: ¶¶ [0098]- [0099]).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Xiu and Zhang et al., WO 2025072311 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 2, Lin and Xiu do not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining the first partition and the second partition for the current block of video data comprises determining the first partition and the second partition for the current block of video data using a geometrical prediction mode (GPM), and wherein performing blending on the OBMC adjusted samples comprises performing GPM blending on the OBMC adjusted samples to generate final prediction samples for the current block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang discloses determining the first partition and the second partition for the current block of video data comprises determining the first partition and the second partition for the current block of video data using a geometrical prediction mode (GPM), and wherein performing blending on the OBMC adjusted samples comprises performing GPM blending on the OBMC adjusted samples to generate final prediction samples for the current block (Zhang: GPM partitioning and GPM blending. ¶¶ [0012], [0017], [0044], Fig. 22).
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 teachings of Lin and Xiu with determining the first partition and the second partition for the current block of video data comprises determining the first partition and the second partition for the current block of video data using a geometrical prediction mode (GPM), and wherein performing blending on the OBMC adjusted samples comprises performing GPM blending on the OBMC adjusted samples to generate final prediction samples for the current block, as taught by Zhang, in order to split video blocks into two regions and smoothly merge them. This significantly improves video quality and compression efficiency
Regarding claim 11, claim 2 is substantially similar to claim 11. Therefore, claim 11 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE L BEASLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0452. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5 p.m.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/DLB/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights