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) submitted on 10/01/2025 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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 12720050 B2) (hereinafter Lim).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses:
A method for decoding an image, the method comprising:
partitioning a current block into a first partitioned area and a second partitioned area along a partitioning boundary; [See Lim, col. 68 lines 20-23 discloses a target block (current block) being partitioned along a boundary into two sub-blocks.]
deriving a prediction sample of the first partitioned area based on an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode; [See Lim, col. 68 line 29 – col. 69 line 23 discloses an AMVP mode whereby each predictor may be generated using a neighboring block of a target block and/or a reference block for the target block.]
deriving a prediction sample of the second partitioned area based on a merge mode; and [See Lim, col. 68 line 29 – col. 69 line 23 discloses a merge mode whereby each predictor may be generated using a neighboring block of a target block and/or a reference block for the target block.]
deriving a prediction sample of the current block by performing weighted summation of the prediction sample of the first partitioned area and the prediction sample of the second partitioned area. [See Lim, col. 48 lines 24-33, col. 53 lines 55-64, col. 68 lines 24-28 discloses that a prediction sample for a target block may be derived through a weighted sum of prediction samples for sub-target blocks resulting from a partitioning along a boundary.]
Regarding claim 2, Lim discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Lim discloses:
wherein the prediction sample of the first partitioned area is derived based on AMVP motion information that is obtained from a bitstream. [See Lim, col. 69 lines 13-19 discloses that for inter-prediction for the second predictor, an inter-prediction mode (e.g., a merge mode, an AMVP mode, etc.) for the second predictor may be determined. Information for determining the inter-prediction mode for the second predictor may be signaled through a bitstream.]
Regarding claim 3, Lim discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Lim discloses:
wherein the AMVP motion information includes motion vector difference information and reference picture information. [See Lim, col. 47 lines 22-56, col. 48 lines 33-35 discloses that a motion vector of a target block may be derived by the prediction motion vector index, the MVD (motion vector difference), the reference direction, and the reference picture index.]
Regarding claim 4, Lim discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Lim discloses:
wherein the prediction sample of the second partitioned area is derived based on motion information of a merge candidate that is selected from a plurality of merge candidates. [See Lim, col. 49 line 29 – col. 50 line 49, col. 53 lines 45-54, col. 54 lines 15-33, col. 64 lines 19-26 discloses a merge index indicating a merge candidate to be used for prediction of a target block.]
Regarding claim 5, Lim discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Lim discloses:
wherein the selected merge candidate is determined based on distortion of the prediction sample of the first partitioned area and candidate prediction samples of the second partitioned area based on motion information of each of the plurality of merge candidates. [See Lim, col. 73 lines 17-34 discloses determining an optimal prediction mode for a target sub-block among available partitioning modes, wherein an optimal prediction mode is determined based on rate-distortion costs among the multiple available partitioning modes.]
Regarding claim 11, Lim discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Lim discloses:
wherein a reference picture of the AMVP mode and a reference picture of the merge mode are in different directions from each other. [See Lim, ¶ 0525, 0543-0546 discloses reference directionality with respect to a merge mode and AMVP.]
Regarding claim 12, One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been aware that decoding is simply the inverse operation of encoding and, in fact is often more generally referred to as "coding", encompassing both. Such a person would have been aware that in order to most accurately decode, it is typically best to use the same method on both the encoding and decoding ends.
Claim 12 thus recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected based on the decoding of claim 1 performing the complimentary operations of the corresponding encoding with respect to claim 12 as such.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 12 in the form of “a method for transmitting a bitstream” rather than “a method of encoding”, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Further, claim 14 recites the following limitations which are not explicitly found from claim 12, but are addressed as follows:
Lim discloses:
A method for transmitting a bitstream, the bitstream being generated by a method for encoding an image, wherein the method for transmitting the bitstream comprises transmitting the bitstream, and wherein the method for encoding the image comprises: [See Lim, ¶ 0554 discloses transmitting encoded information to a decoding apparatus through a bitstream.]
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Sethuraman et al. (US 20210084328 A1) (hereinafter Sethuraman).
Regarding claim 6, Lim discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Lim does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the distortion is calculated based on bilateral matching.
However, Sethuraman discloses:
wherein the distortion is calculated based on bilateral matching. [See Sethuraman, ¶ 0028, 0030-0033 discloses bilateral matching process tries to improve the level of alignment between the motion compensated blocks in the two references involved in bi-prediction. Particularly, bilateral template matching applied in the decoder to perform a distortion-based search between a bilateral template and the reconstruction samples in the reference pictures.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Lim to add the teachings of Sethuraman in order to obtain a refined motion vector without transmission of additional motion information.
Regarding claim 7, Lim discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Sethuraman discloses:
wherein the distortion is calculated based on template matching. [See Sethuraman, ¶ 0028, 0030-0033 discloses bilateral matching process tries to improve the level of alignment between the motion compensated blocks in the two references involved in bi-prediction. Particularly, bilateral template matching applied in the decoder to perform a distortion-based search between a bilateral template and the reconstruction samples in the reference pictures.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 6.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim in view of Sethuraman in view of Ikai et al. (US 201900045214 A1) (hereinafter Ikai).
Regarding claim 8, Lim in view of Sethuraman discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Lim in view of Sethuraman does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the template matching uses an L-shaped template.
However, Ikai discloses:
wherein the template matching uses an L-shaped template. [See Ikai, ¶ 0390, 0411 discloses selecting and employing template matching. Particularly, in the template matching, on the assumption that the motion of the object does not change at the block boundary, the difference (matching) between a neighbor region (for example, a template region having an inverted L-shape with the upper line and the left line of the target block) of the target block on the target image, and the template region (=region having an inverted L-shape) on the reference image is obtained, and a motion vector indicated by the block where the difference is smallest is searched.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Lim in view of Sethuraman to add the teachings of Ikai in order to verify and minimize a difference between a neighbor region of the target block and the template region on a reference image.
Regarding claim 9, Lim in view of Sethuraman discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Ikai discloses:
wherein the template matching uses any one template of an upper template and a left template. [See Ikai, ¶ 0390, 0411 discloses selecting and employing template matching. Particularly, in the template matching, on the assumption that the motion of the object does not change at the block boundary, the difference (matching) between a neighbor region (for example, a template region having an inverted L-shape with the upper line and the left line of the target block) of the target block on the target image, and the template region (=region having an inverted L-shape) on the reference image is obtained, and a motion vector indicated by the block where the difference is smallest is searched.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Lim in view of Sethuraman discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Ikai discloses:
wherein the template matching uses a template that is determined according to the partitioning boundary. [See Ikai, ¶ 0390, 0411 discloses as well as “bi-prediction matching”, “template matching” may be used as the matching mode. In the template matching, on the assumption that the motion of the object does not change at the block boundary, the difference (matching) between a neighbor region (for example, a template region having an inverted L-shape with the upper line and the left line of the target block) of the target block on the target image, and the template region (=region having an inverted L-shape) on the reference image is obtained, and a motion vector indicated by the block where the difference is smallest is searched.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 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 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights