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 § 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 1,4,8-9, and 11-15 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. The claims 4,8-9, and 11-12 refer to “a motion candidate” while the claims which they depend on already refer to “a motion candidate” initially in claims 1 and 13-15 in addition to derived “motion candidates”. This leaves the limitations unclear as to whether the disclosed “a motion candidate” of claims 1 and 13-15 refer to one of the derived motion candidates or if they are separate from the previously claimed motion candidates, rendering the limitation of “a motion candidate” indefinite. For the purposes of examination, this first “a motion candidate” in the independent claims 1 and 13-15 will be interpreted as “a motion candidate from the motion candidates”.
Additionally, the present claim language is unclear as to whether the disclosed “a motion candidate” of claims 4,8-9, and 11-12 refer to the same motion candidate previously disclosed, one of the derived motion candidates, or if they are separate from the previously claimed motion candidate, rendering the limitations indefinite. For the purposes of examination, “a motion candidate” as disclosed in claims 4,8-9, and 11-12 will be interpreted as “the[[a]] motion candidate from the motion candidates”.
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) 1-2, 13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over XU; Xiaozhong et al. (US 20200128266 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches,
A video coding method (Title, “Method and apparatus for video coding”) comprising:
receiving data to be encoded or decoded as a current block of pixels of a current picture of a video; (¶43,61, and fig. 2, “stream of video pictures (202)”, of organized “spatial array of pixels”, processed by a “video encoder (203)” and “video decoder (210)” accesses “encoded video data (204)” as depicted in fig. 2)
selecting a merge candidate from a plurality of merge candidates (¶101, “merge index is signaled to indicate which candidate in a merge candidate list is used” when a merge flag is signaled as true) to obtain a base motion for the current block; (¶101, “merge index is signaled to indicate which candidate” is used to indicate “motion vectors of the current block”)
refining the base motion (¶149, “merge candidate refinement”) by performing bilateral matching; (¶149, “bilateral matching can be used to further refine the given motion vector predictor(s)”)
derive motion candidates (¶149, “perform motion compensation”) based on the refined base motion; (¶149, “refined motion vector(s) will be used to perform motion compensation”) and
encoding or decoding the current block (¶86,135 and 130, “encoder (530)” generates “inter prediction block” results applied for the “current CU” block) by selecting a motion candidate to generate a prediction of the current block. (¶135,86, and 149, “inter prediction block” is generated based on “motion vector that is determined” based on merge mode information of “a signaled merge index” for “refined motion vectors” used to perform “motion compensation”)
Regarding claim 2, Xu teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Xu teaches additionally,
motion candidates (¶108, special merge mode of the “existing merge candidate” signaled referred to as “merge mode with MV difference (MMVD)”) are derived by applying offsets (¶108, “an offset” on top of the existing “merge candidate” signaled for merge mode with MV difference for the “offsets to the merge candidates” signaled) at different directions to the refined base motion (¶108, “an offset (both magnitude and direction) on top of the existing merge candidates” signaled, where the offset described with a ”prediction direction IDX (index)”)
Regarding claim 13, it is the apparatus claim similar to the coding method of claim 1.
Xu teaches additionally,
An electronic apparatus (¶43 and fig. 2, “electronic device (220)” and “electronic device (230)”) comprising:
a video coder circuit (¶43 and fig. 2, “electronic device (220) that includes a video encoder (203)” and video decoder (210) in an “electronic device (230)”) configured to perform operations (¶43,62, and 57, “video encoder” may code and compress the pictures of the source video sequence “as required by the application” and “video decoder” may perform decoding operations according to a “video compression technology”) comprising:
Refer to rejection of claim 1 to teach the additional limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, it is the decoding method of the coding method of claim 1.
Xu teaches additionally,
reconstructing the current block (¶183-191, “reconstruction” of a coded “current block are reconstructed based on the respective motion information”) by selecting a motion candidate (¶185-191, “reference block is determined” based on the “merge candidate being block vector”) to generate a prediction of the current block. (¶183-191,135 and 149, “generate a prediction block for the block under reconstruction” based on merge mode information of “a signaled merge index” for “refined motion vectors” used to perform “motion compensation”)
Refer to rejection of claim 1 to teach the additional limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, it is the encoding method of the coding method of claim 1.
Xu teaches additionally,
encoding the current block (¶85-86 and fig. 5, “encoder (530)”, included in video encoder (503) depicted in fig. 5, “receive the samples of the current block”) by selecting a motion candidate (¶86, “generate inter prediction information” including “motion vectors, merge mode information”) to generate a prediction of the current block. (¶135,86, and 149, “inter prediction block” is generated based on “motion vector that is determined” based on merge mode information of “a signaled merge index” for “refined motion vectors” used to perform “motion compensation”)
Refer to rejection of claim 1 to teach the additional limitations of claim 15.
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) 3-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU; Xiaozhong et al. (US 20200128266 A1) in view of KIM; Dong-Hyun et al. (US 20240406436 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Xu teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 3,
However, Kim teaches additionally,
refining the motion candidates by bilateral matching, (¶999-1000, “initial motion information candidate list” is refined to minimize and/or in order of “bilateral matching cost”) wherein the prediction is generated (¶1040, “determine the motion information for inter-prediction in the L0 direction and/or L1 direction of the target block”) based on the refined derived motion candidate. (¶1040, “refined motion information” used to determine the “motion information for inter-prediction”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Xu with the refined motion information of Kim used to predict the target block. The techniques of Kim can identify motion information with the lowest matching costs.
Regarding claim 4, Xu with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 3,
However, Kim teaches additionally,
refining a motion candidate (¶1039-1040, “motion information derivation” at a first search step that may be “refined”) comprises a first refinement pass (¶1039-1040, “first search step” for refining “motion information”) for refining the derived motion candidate in a block level. (¶1039-1040, “At a first search step, motion information may be refined using bilateral matching for the entire block”)
Regarding claim 5, Xu with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 4,
However, Kim teaches additionally,
refining the motion candidate (¶1039-1040, “motion information derivation” at a second search step that may be “refined”) further comprises a second refinement pass (¶1039-1040, “second search step” for refining “motion information”) for refining the derived motion candidate in a subblock level. (¶1039-1040, “At a second search step, motion information may be refined through bilateral matching in units of subblocks”)
Regarding claim 6, Xu with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 5,
However, Kim teaches additionally,
motion candidate (¶999-1000, 1039-1040, and 1098, “motion information” from an initial “motion information candidate list”) comprises a plurality of subblock-level motion vectors (¶999-1000,1039-1040, and 1098, “motion information candidate list” is refined “in units of subblocks” of the block) for a plurality of subblocks of the current block. (¶1039-1040 and 1098, in units of subblocks “of the block”)
Regarding claim 7, Xu with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 5,
However, Kim teaches additionally,
refining the motion candidate (¶1039-1040, “motion information derivation” at a third search step that may be “refined”) further comprises a third refinement pass (¶1039-1040, “third search step” for refining “motion information”) for refining the derived motion candidate by applying bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) (¶1039-1040 and 1732, “refined using optical flow-based motion information prediction” which may be a “BiDirectional Optical Flow (BDOF)”) to a result of the second refinement pass. (¶1039-1040 and 1097-1098, “At a third search step, motion information may be refined using optical flow-based motion information prediction in units of subblocks” after the second search step such that bilateral matching includes the step of “deriving motion information of subblocks of the block” after deriving motion information of the entire block)
Regarding claim 8, Xu with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 3,
However, Kim teaches additionally,
refining a motion candidate comprises a refinement pass (¶1039-1040, “motion information derivation” composed of “three search step” that refine motion information) for refining the derived motion candidate by applying bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) (¶1039-1040 and 1732, “refined using optical flow-based motion information prediction” which may be a “BiDirectional Optical Flow (BDOF)”)
Regarding claim 9, Xu with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 3,
However, Kim teaches additionally,
motion candidate (¶999-1000, 1039-1040, and 1098, “motion information” from an initial “motion information candidate list”) comprises a plurality of subblock-level motion vectors (¶999-1000,1039-1040, and 1098, “motion information candidate list” is refined “in units of subblocks” of the block) for a plurality of subblocks of the current block. (¶1039-1040 and 1098, in units of subblocks “of the block”)
Regarding claim 10, Xu teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 10,
However, Kim teaches additionally,
motion candidates (¶1310, “candidates in the motion information candidate list”) are assigned indices according to costs. (¶1310, “motion information index for the LX direction may be an index” determined using “template matching cost” among the “candidates in the motion information candidate list”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Xu with the template matching of Kim used to determine a motion information index for candidates in a motion information candidate list. Determining information in this way helps improve prediction performance for a target block.
Regarding claim 11, Xu with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 10,
However, Kim teaches additionally,
a cost of a motion candidate is determined (¶1310,1141-1146, and fig. 23, “motion information index for the LX direction may be an index” determined using “template matching cost” among the “candidates in the motion information candidate list”) based on a comparison between a current template of the current block and a reference template (¶1310 and 1141-1146, “calculation which uses the cost function for the template of the target block and the template of the reference block”) identified by the motion candidate. (¶1141-1146, template matching for “motion information” refined through the result of the “calculation of a cost function”)
Claim(s) 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU; Xiaozhong et al. (US 20200128266 A1) in view of KIM; Dong-Hyun et al. (US 20240406436 A1) in view of CHEN; Lien-Fei et al. (US 20240015319 A1)
Regarding claim 12, Xu with Kim teaches the limitations of claim 10,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 12,
However, Chen teaches additionally,
cost of a motion candidate is determined (¶254-258 and fig. 26, “template matching (TM) cost can be determined”) based on a comparison between subblock templates of the current block (¶254-258 and fig. 26, template matching (TM) cost determined based on “the current template”) and subblock templates identified by subblock motion vectors of the motion candidate. (¶254-258 and fig. 26, template matching (TM) cost determined based on current template and the “subblock reference template associated” with the subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction “SbTMVP candidate”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding of Xu with the template matching of Kim with the template-matching of Chen which determines a cost based on a subblock-based temporal motion vector prediction candidate. This technique can improve coding efficiency and reduce transmission overhead of motion vectors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-8PM 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 G. 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.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights