DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 28 OCTOBER 2025 and the Information Disclosure Statement.
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 (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, it is unclear how the parsing of the motion mode syntax can be independent of a prediction mode. There would be a plurality of ways in which the motion mode syntax cannot be independent of a prediction mode. For instance, (i) the motion mode itself identifies a prediction mode, (ii) the motion mode would be decoded if warp mode prediction is allowed, and (iii) warp mode is dependent on the frame being inter predicted. Without additional clarification, it is not possible to determine how a variable for predicting can be independent of a prediction mode. For examination purposes, the motion mode syntax is independent of a prediction mode if it is not an enabling parameter that is self-referential (i.e., warp_causal_enabling restricting the signaling of warp_causal would be considered dependent on a prediction mode).
With regard to claims 14 and 19, the same rationale of claim 1 above applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rivaz et al., “AV1 Bitstream & Decoding Process Specification”, Version 1.0.0 with Errata 1 (hereinafter “De Rivaz”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2026/0136038 A1 (hereinafter “Sarwer”).
Regarding claim 1, De Rivaz discloses
determining that the current block is coded in a warp mode of a set of warp modes by parsing a motion mode syntax, wherein parsing the motion mode syntax is prediction mode independent (Section 3, p. 12, syntax “MOTION_MODES 3 Numbers of values for motion modes.” Section 5.11.23, p. 75, “read_motion_mode( isCompound ).” Section 5.11.27, pp. 79-80 describe selecting between the set of warp modes by way of motion_mode. Note, the read_motion_mode() function does not include any reliance on a prediction mode and is therefore prediction mode independent. Section 6.10.26, p. 185 describes the motion motions as including “SIMPLE,” “OBMC,” and “LOCALWARP”); and
reconstructing the current block using the warp mode (Section 7.12.3, p. 294, “The reconstruction process is invoked to perform dequantization, inverse transform and reconstruction.” Section 2., pp. 4-5 defines residual as, “The difference between the reconstructed samples and the corresponding prediction values” and defines reconstruction as, “Obtaining the addition of the decoded residual and the corresponding prediction values.” Note, the prediction values correspond to the prediction out of the warp mode based on invoking the prediction of Section 5.11.23).
De Rivaz fails to expressly disclose a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block.
However, Sarwer teaches a method of video decoding ([0005], “a method for decoding using warped motion compensation”) performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors ([0007], “a non-transitory computer-readable medium and a processor configured to execute instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium to perform decoding using warped motion compensation”), the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block ([0071], “The decoder 500 may receive a compressed bitstream 502, such as the compressed bitstream 404 shown in FIG. 4, and may decode the compressed bitstream 502 to generate an output video stream 504.” [0092], “Encoding using warped motion compensation 700 includes generating an encoded bitstream by encoding the current block from the current frame from the input video:” e.g., the bitstream includes the current block).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have implemented the warp mode coding in a decoding method, as taught by Sarwer ([0005]), in De Rivaz’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify De Rivaz’s invention, by incorporating Sarwer’s invention, to provide high-resolution image and video transmitted over communication channels having limited bandwidth (Sarwer: [0002]) and to reduce to practice the technical document of De Rivaz with the structural elements and received bitstream of Sarwer by combining them according to known methods of implementing software to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 2, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, De Rivaz discloses wherein the warp mode is determined without considering a warp motion vector mode (Section 5.11.27, pp. 79-80 describe the motion_mode for selecting the warp mode and there is no warp motion vector mode consideration. Additionally, Sarwer in [0124-0125] describes certain motion modes can be decoded regardless of warp motion vector prediction mode, such as warp casual and warp delta, since they can be determined to be used whether is_warpmv=1 or is_warpmv=0. Therefore, the values of is_warpmv is not considered).
Regarding claim 3, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Sarwer discloses wherein the set of warp modes comprises a warp delta mode, a warp casual mode, and a warp extend mode ([0251], “the motion mode for the current block is the causal warp motion mode (WARP_CAUSAL), the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), the extended warp motion mode (WARP_EXTEND), or a non-warp motion mode, such as a translational motion mode”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, De Rivaz discloses further comprising, after determining that the current block is coded in the warp mode, parsing one or more mode-specific parameters from the video bitstream, wherein the current block is reconstructed using the warp mode and the one or more mode-specific parameters (Section 3, p. 12, defines the motion modes as “SIMPLE 0 Use translation or global motion compensation,” “OBMC 1 Use overlapped block motion compensation,” and “LOCALWARP 2 Use local warp motion compensation.” The compensation parameters are mode-specific. Additionally, Sarwer discloses, [0107], “in the local warp mode (WARP_CAUSAL), for the current block, a motion vector indicating translational motion is signaled in the encoded bitstream.” For Sarwer’s disclosure, the same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 4, as outlined above. Additionally, De Rivaz discloses wherein the warp mode is a warp causal mode, and wherein the one or more mode-specific parameters comprise a warp-causal parameter (Section 3, p. 12, defines the motion modes as including “SIMPLE 0 Use translation or global motion compensation.” Note, translation motion is causal motion. Additionally, Sarwer discloses, [0107], “in the local warp mode (WARP_CAUSAL), for the current block, a motion vector indicating translational motion is signaled in the encoded bitstream.” For Sarwer’s disclosure, the same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, De Rivaz discloses wherein determining that the current block is coded in the warp mode comprises determining whether the current block is coded in one of: a translation mode; an overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) mode; an inter-intra mode; a warp extend mode; a warp causal mode; and a warp delta mode (Section 3, p. 12, defines the motion modes as “SIMPLE 0 Use translation or global motion compensation,” “OBMC 1 Use overlapped block motion compensation,” and “LOCALWARP 2 Use local warp motion compensation.” The compensation parameters are mode-specific. Additionally, Sarwer discloses, [0251], “the motion mode for the current block is the causal warp motion mode (WARP_CAUSAL), the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), the extended warp motion mode (WARP_EXTEND), or a non-warp motion mode, such as a translational motion mode.” For Sarwer’s disclosure, the same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Sarwer discloses further comprising determining a dynamic reference list (DRL) index based on the warp mode ([0131], “encoding using warped motion compensation 700 includes obtaining, such as by generating, a list, or array, of translational motion vectors (Dynamic Reference List, DRL, or translational dynamic reference list) generated from the context blocks for the current block. The dynamic reference list includes a list of reference motion vectors, respectively identified, or identifiable, by a corresponding dynamic reference list index value.” [0125] describes warp modes when warp motion vector prediction mode is not used. [0254], “the prediction mode data for the current block indicates that the prediction mode for the current block is other than the warp motion vector prediction mode and the motion mode data for the current block indicates that the motion mode for the current block is the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), and decoding using warped motion compensation 1700 includes accessing, reading, extracting, decoding, such as entropy decoding, or otherwise obtaining, from the encoded bitstream, a translational dynamic reference list index value.” Note, the warp modes are based on enabling warp prediction). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 7, as outlined above. Additionally, Sarwer discloses wherein the DRL index is parsed based on the warp mode and a prediction mode of the current block ([0131], “encoding using warped motion compensation 700 includes obtaining, such as by generating, a list, or array, of translational motion vectors (Dynamic Reference List, DRL, or translational dynamic reference list) generated from the context blocks for the current block. The dynamic reference list includes a list of reference motion vectors, respectively identified, or identifiable, by a corresponding dynamic reference list index value.” [0125] describes warp modes when warp motion vector prediction mode is not used. [0254], “the prediction mode data for the current block indicates that the prediction mode for the current block is other than the warp motion vector prediction mode and the motion mode data for the current block indicates that the motion mode for the current block is the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), and decoding using warped motion compensation 1700 includes accessing, reading, extracting, decoding, such as entropy decoding, or otherwise obtaining, from the encoded bitstream, a translational dynamic reference list index value.” Note, the warp modes are based on enabling warp prediction). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 7, as outlined above. Additionally, Sarwer discloses further comprising determining a translational parameter for the warp mode based on the DRL ([0131], “encoding using warped motion compensation 700 includes obtaining, such as by generating, a list, or array, of translational motion vectors (Dynamic Reference List, DRL, or translational dynamic reference list) generated from the context blocks for the current block. The dynamic reference list includes a list of reference motion vectors, respectively identified, or identifiable, by a corresponding dynamic reference list index value.” [0125] describes warp modes when warp motion vector prediction mode is not used. [0254], “the prediction mode data for the current block indicates that the prediction mode for the current block is other than the warp motion vector prediction mode and the motion mode data for the current block indicates that the motion mode for the current block is the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), and decoding using warped motion compensation 1700 includes accessing, reading, extracting, decoding, such as entropy decoding, or otherwise obtaining, from the encoded bitstream, a translational dynamic reference list index value.” Note, the determining the translational parameter is retrieving the indexed value from the DRL). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Sarwer discloses further comprising parsing an indicator in the video bitstream, the indicator indicating whether the warp mode uses a warp reference list (WRL) ([0243-0242] describes the step 1720 of FIG. 17 for decoding prediction mode information and requiring inter prediction for warp prediction and being able to derive information thereof, which would include the WRL of step 1730). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 10, as outlined above. Additionally, Sarwer discloses wherein the warp mode is warp causal mode, warp delta mode, or warp extend mode ([0251], “the motion mode data for the current block indicates whether the motion mode for the current block is the causal warp motion mode (WARP_CAUSAL), the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), the extended warp motion mode (WARP_EXTEND), or a non-warp motion mode, such as a translational motion mode.” [0109], “In the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), a warp reference list (WRL) is generated from neighboring blocks”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 10, as outlined above. Additionally, Sarwer discloses further comprises determining one or more motion vector predictors using the WRL ([0109], “warped motion may be coded using a differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA). In the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), a warp reference list (WRL) is generated from neighboring blocks, such as previously coded, or context, blocks, coded using a warp model. Predicted warp motion model parameters for the current block are obtained from the warp reference list.” [0152], “wherein the prediction mode for the current block is other than the warp motion vector prediction mode, the motion mode for the current block is the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), the warp reference list index value (WRL INDEX VALUE or warp_ref_idx) for the current block is one (warp_ref_idx=1)”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, De Rivaz and Sarwer disclose every limitation of claim 12, as outlined above. Additionally, Sarwer discloses further comprising determining whether a motion vector difference is signaled in the video bitstream based on an index of the WRL for the current block ([0109], “warped motion may be coded using a differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA). In the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), a warp reference list (WRL) is generated from neighboring blocks, such as previously coded, or context, blocks, coded using a warp model. Predicted warp motion model parameters for the current block are obtained from the warp reference list.” [0152], “wherein the prediction mode for the current block is other than the warp motion vector prediction mode, the motion mode for the current block is the differential warp motion mode (WARP_DELTA), the warp reference list index value (WRL INDEX VALUE or warp_ref_idx) for the current block is one (warp_ref_idx=1)”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations are the same as those in claim 10. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 10 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Examiner’s Note: The above rejection of claim 19 and 20 are an alternative rejection where each limitation if given patentable weight. However, the claims recite a product-by-process and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not give patentable weight to the video encoding method. See 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0382799 A1 (hereinafter “Chernyak”).
Regarding claim 19, Chernyak discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video bitstream comprising: […] and wherein the video encoding method comprises: […] (Claim 19’s recitation of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method” is a product by-process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP § 2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes generating the bitstream conforming to a format rule manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a Page 17 Application/Control Number: 19/338,967 Art Unit: 2481 functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 19 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the bitstream structure, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Chernyak which recites: [0136], “The encoded bitstream 21 may be transmitted to video decoder 30, or stored in a memory for later transmission or retrieval by video decoder 30”).
Regarding claim 20, the same analysis of claim 19 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2024/0048730 A1 (hereinafter “Gao”) – Discloses a plurality of warp mode tools for prediction. See Gao, ¶ [0005].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights