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
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 or 2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20230328276) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 20, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a method. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is not implementing any method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a method. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream with video content) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, this claim is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by the recited method) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, this claim is anticipated by Zhang paragraph(s) 48-50, which discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream.
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 taught 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20230328276) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Lo et al. (US 20250280106) (hereinafter Lo).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, motion fields of a plurality of coding units coded before the current video block (see Zhang paragraphs 6-11, 33-37, 109, 164, and 193-194 regarding determining for encoding and decoding, motion fields of a plurality of coding units and determining a affine merge candidates using a linear regression process, broadly allowing them to be called regression affine candidates, where motion fields are provided on the subblock level, and AMVP may be determined with the regression affine candidate and multiple regression candidates may be determined [it is obvious that the regression candidates, in combination with Lo, would use a different number of coding units], and the statistically most used reference index from a coding block is used to determine a further regression affine candidate, meaning there is a reference index that is identical to a further reference index, making that coding unit used again later for the further regression candidate),
determining a regression affine candidate of the current video block based on the motion fields of the plurality of coding units; and performing the conversion based on the regression affine candidate (see Zhang paragraphs 6-11, 33-37, 109, 164, and 193-194 regarding determining for encoding and decoding, motion fields of a plurality of coding units and determining a affine merge candidates using a linear regression process, broadly allowing them to be called regression affine candidates, where motion fields are provided on the subblock level, and AMVP may be determined with the regression affine candidate and multiple regression candidates may be determined [it is obvious that the regression candidates, in combination with Lo, would use a different number of coding units], and the statistically most used reference index from a coding block is used to determine a further regression affine candidate, meaning there is a reference index that is identical to a further reference index, making that coding unit used again later for the further regression candidate).
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach a coding unit location selection as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Lo, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of coding units is collected from at least one of: an adjacent neighboring position, an adjacent neighboring position at a location, a collocated temporal position, an adjacent temporal position, a non-adjacent spatial position, a non-adjacent temporal position, or a history table of the current video block (see Lo paragraph 60 blending information from non-adjacent affine CUs with non-necessarily affine regression model from spatially neighboring CUs for affine determination that includes regression- in combination with Zhang, which teaches regression affine candidates, this method of CU selection and blending would obviously produce multiple affine regression candidates with different numbers of previously coded CUs used in determining them);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Zhang to include the teaching of Lo so that in combination with Zhang, which teaches regression affine candidates, this method of CU selection and blending would obviously produce multiple affine regression candidates with different numbers of previously coded CUs used in determining them.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to utilize an effective range of CUs when selecting information for a candidate (see Lo paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches wherein for a coding unit of the plurality of coding units, the motion fields comprise at least one motion field provided by at least one subblock of the coding unit (see Zhang paragraphs 6-11, 33-37, 109, 164, and 193-194 regarding determining for encoding and decoding, motion fields of a plurality of coding units and determining a affine merge candidates using a linear regression process, broadly allowing them to be called regression affine candidates, where motion fields are provided on the subblock level, and AMVP may be determined with the regression affine candidate and multiple regression candidates may be determined [it is obvious that the regression candidates, in combination with Lo, would use a different number of coding units], and the statistically most used reference index from a coding block is used to determine a further regression affine candidate, meaning there is a reference index that is identical to a further reference index, making that coding unit used again later for the further regression candidate).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches wherein for a coding unit of the plurality of coding units, the motion field comprises at least one motion field provided by all subblocks of the coding unit (see Zhang paragraphs 6-11, 33-37, 109, 164, and 193-194 regarding determining for encoding and decoding, motion fields of a plurality of coding units and determining a affine merge candidates using a linear regression process, broadly allowing them to be called regression affine candidates, where motion fields are provided on the subblock level, and AMVP may be determined with the regression affine candidate and multiple regression candidates may be determined [it is obvious that the regression candidates, in combination with Lo, would use a different number of coding units], and the statistically most used reference index from a coding block is used to determine a further regression affine candidate, meaning there is a reference index that is identical to a further reference index, making that coding unit used again later for the further regression candidate).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches wherein the plurality of coding units comprises at least one affine coded coding unit and at least one non-affine coded coding unit, and the motion fields of the at least one affine coded coding unit and the at least one non-affine coded coding unit are used to determine the regression affine candidate (see Lo paragraph 60 blending information from non-adjacent affine CUs with non-necessarily affine regression model from spatially neighboring CUs for affine determination that includes regression- in combination with Zhang, which teaches regression affine candidates, this method of CU selection and blending would obviously produce multiple affine regression candidates with different numbers of previously coded CUs used in determining them).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to utilize an effective range of CUs when selecting information for a candidate (see Lo paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches wherein the regression affine candidate is used for determining at least one of: an affine merge, an affine advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP), an affine (MMVD), an adaptive (DMVR) for affine, an affine template matching (TM), an affine DMVR, or a further affine related information requiring an affine candidate list construction (see Zhang paragraphs 6-11, 33-37, 109, 164, and 193-194 regarding determining for encoding and decoding, motion fields of a plurality of coding units and determining a affine merge candidates using a linear regression process, broadly allowing them to be called regression affine candidates, where motion fields are provided on the subblock level, and AMVP may be determined with the regression affine candidate and multiple regression candidates may be determined [it is obvious that the regression candidates, in combination with Lo, would use a different number of coding units], and the statistically most used reference index from a coding block is used to determine a further regression affine candidate, meaning there is a reference index that is identical to a further reference index, making that coding unit used again later for the further regression candidate).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches wherein an affine candidate list of the current video block comprises a plurality of regression affine candidates based on different numbers of previously coded coding units (see Lo paragraph 60 blending information from non-adjacent affine CUs with non-necessarily affine regression model from spatially neighboring CUs for affine determination that includes regression- in combination with Zhang, which teaches regression affine candidates, this method of CU selection and blending would obviously produce multiple affine regression candidates with different numbers of previously coded CUs used in determining them).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to utilize an effective range of CUs when selecting information for a candidate (see Lo paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches wherein a first regression affine candidate in the affine candidate list is determined based on a first number of previously coded coding units, and a second regression affine candidate in the affine candidate list is determined based on a second number of previously coded coding units, the second number being different from the first number (see Zhang paragraphs 6-11, 33-37, 109, 164, and 193-194 regarding determining for encoding and decoding, motion fields of a plurality of coding units and determining a affine merge candidates using a linear regression process, broadly allowing them to be called regression affine candidates, where motion fields are provided on the subblock level, and AMVP may be determined with the regression affine candidate and multiple regression candidates may be determined [it is obvious that the regression candidates, in combination with Lo, would use a different number of coding units], and the statistically most used reference index from a coding block is used to determine a further regression affine candidate, meaning there is a reference index that is identical to a further reference index, making that coding unit used again later for the further regression candidate).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches wherein the current video block being in an affine advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode, and wherein the method further comprises: determining a further regression affine candidate for the current video block based on motion field of a plurality of coding blocks (see Zhang paragraphs 6-11, 33-37, 109, 164, and 193-194 regarding determining for encoding and decoding, motion fields of a plurality of coding units and determining a affine merge candidates using a linear regression process, broadly allowing them to be called regression affine candidates, where motion fields are provided on the subblock level, and AMVP may be determined with the regression affine candidate and multiple regression candidates may be determined [it is obvious that the regression candidates, in combination with Lo, would use a different number of coding units], and the statistically most used reference index from a coding block is used to determine a further regression affine candidate, meaning there is a reference index that is identical to a further reference index, making that coding unit used again later for the further regression candidate).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches wherein if a reference index or a reference frame for a coding block is identical to a further reference index or a further reference frame of the current video block, the coding block is used to determine the further regression affine candidate (see Zhang paragraphs 6-11, 33-37, 109, 164, and 193-194 regarding determining for encoding and decoding, motion fields of a plurality of coding units and determining a affine merge candidates using a linear regression process, broadly allowing them to be called regression affine candidates, where motion fields are provided on the subblock level, and AMVP may be determined with the regression affine candidate and multiple regression candidates may be determined [it is obvious that the regression candidates, in combination with Lo, would use a different number of coding units], and the statistically most used reference index from a coding block is used to determine a further regression affine candidate, meaning there is a reference index that is identical to a further reference index, making that coding unit used again later for the further regression candidate).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches wherein the conversion comprises encoding the current video block into the bitstream (see Zhang paragraphs 6-11, 33-37, 109, 164, and 193-194 regarding determining for encoding and decoding, motion fields of a plurality of coding units and determining a affine merge candidates using a linear regression process, broadly allowing them to be called regression affine candidates, where motion fields are provided on the subblock level, and AMVP may be determined with the regression affine candidate and multiple regression candidates may be determined [it is obvious that the regression candidates, in combination with Lo, would use a different number of coding units], and the statistically most used reference index from a coding block is used to determine a further regression affine candidate, meaning there is a reference index that is identical to a further reference index, making that coding unit used again later for the further regression candidate).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Zhang and Lo teaches wherein the conversion comprises decoding the current video block from the bitstream (see Zhang paragraphs 6-11, 33-37, 109, 164, and 193-194 regarding determining for encoding and decoding, motion fields of a plurality of coding units and determining a affine merge candidates using a linear regression process, broadly allowing them to be called regression affine candidates, where motion fields are provided on the subblock level, and AMVP may be determined with the regression affine candidate and multiple regression candidates may be determined [it is obvious that the regression candidates, in combination with Lo, would use a different number of coding units], and the statistically most used reference index from a coding block is used to determine a further regression affine candidate, meaning there is a reference index that is identical to a further reference index, making that coding unit used again later for the further regression candidate).
Independent claim(s) 13 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding a processor and non-transitory memory with instructions as taught by Zhang paragraphs 48-50 and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Dependent claim(s) 14-18 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 2-6, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Independent claim(s) 19 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding a processor and non-transitory storage medium with instructions as taught by Zhang paragraphs 48-50, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Independent claim(s) 20 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding a non-transitory storage medium storing a bitstream as taught by Zhang paragraphs 48-50, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 contains the limitations regarding a first and second regression affine candidate being determined with different number of previously coded CUs used in their determination, where if one of the regression affine candidates had used a higher number of CUs in their determination, it would have a higher priority to be included in the affine candidate list than a regression affine candidate with less used CUs. At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
The closest prior art, Zhang et al. (US 20230328276), Lo et al. (US 20250280106), Jin et al. (US 20190246101), Hong et al. (US 20230362390), Zhao et al. (US 20200137382), Zhang et al. (US 20210195234), Choi et al. (US 20210250606), Sethuraman et al. (US 20210203946), Lim et al. (US 20230041717), Zhao et al. (US 20210044803), Park et al. (US 11997286), Robert et al. (US 20230023837), Sugio et al. (US 20230328254) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. While the prior art teaches regression affine candidates in a list, as well as other forms of prioritizing candidates in a list for selection, the prior art does not teach a first and second regression affine candidate being determined with different number of previously coded CUs used in their determination, where if one of the regression affine candidates had used a higher number of CUs in their determination, it would have a higher priority to be included in the affine candidate list than a regression affine candidate with less used CUs. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm 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, 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights