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) was/were submitted on 10 October 2025. The submission is 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 § 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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a second vector" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim from which it depends on recites “a second vector” in line 3 of claim 1. It may be unclear if these are the same or different limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) has(have) improper language regarding the computer readable medium (Please see the MPEP 2106 Section IV. Determine Whether the Claimed Invention Complies with 35 U.S.C. 101). The claim language allows for interpreting the media as carrier waves, which is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
The Examiner suggests adding the phrase –non-transitory medium-- to the claims to overcome the rejection.
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)(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) 1-3, and 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paluri et al. (US 2024/0406403 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 14-15, Paluri discloses a CRM storing a bitstream for image information, wherein the image information is generated by an image encoding/decoding method comprising: deriving a first vector pointing to a first reference block corresponding to a current block [Paluri: Abstract: deriving a motion vector of a current block; ¶ [0050] The intra predictor 222 may predict the current block by referring to the samples in the current picture. The referred samples may be located in the neighborhood of the current block or may be located apart according to the prediction mode]; deriving a second vector pointing to a second reference block corresponding to a subblock constituting the current block based on the first vector [Paluri: Abstract: deriving a refined motion vector regarding the current block by applying decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) to the motion vector]; generating prediction samples of the current block based on the second vector [Paluri: Abstract: deriving prediction samples regarding the current block on the basis of the refined motion vector]; and generating residual/reconstructed samples of the current block based on the prediction samples [Paluri: Abstract: generating reconstruction samples regarding the current block on the basis of the prediction samples], wherein the deriving of the second vector includes refining the first vector through a search based on a difference between reconstructed regions related to the subblock [Paluri: Abstract: wherein the refined motion vector is derived on the basis of a search end condition of the decoder-side motion vector refinement].
Regarding Claim 2, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses wherein, when the first vector for the current block is derived according to intra-picture template matching prediction or IBC prediction [Paluri: ¶ [0052]: In addition, the predictor may be based on an intra block copy (IBC) prediction mode or a palette mode for prediction of a block. The IBC prediction mode or palette mode may be used for content image/video coding of a game or the like, for example, screen content coding (SCC). The IBC basically performs prediction in the current picture but may be performed similarly to inter prediction in that a reference block is derived in the current picture], the reconstructed regions used for the search include templates reconstructed within a current picture to which the current block belongs [Paluri: ¶ [0111] In addition, the decoding apparatus may derive motion vectors (e.g., MV0′ and MV1′) for minimizing a difference between the template and the sample area of the reference picture through a template matching operation (step 2). Here, the sample area may indicate a neighboring area of an initial prediction block in the reference picture and the sample area may be referred to as the neighboring area, a reference area, a search area, a search range, a search space, etc. The template matching operation may include an operation of calculating a cost measurement value between the template and the sample area of the reference picture].
Regarding Claim 3, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses wherein the deriving of the second vector includes searching for a second vector pointing to a template showing the smallest template matching cost with respect to a template of the subblock in a search region centered around a position indicated by the first vector [Paluri: ¶ [0111]: In addition, a motion vector for calculating minimum template cost for each of two reference pictures may be considered as an updated motion vector (replacing the initial motion vector)].
Regarding Claim 5, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses wherein the deriving of the second vector includes searching for a second vector indicating a template with the smallest template matching cost with respect to a template of a subblock in a predetermined search region centered around a position indicated by a second vector derived for a previous subblock adjacent to the left or top of the corresponding subblock coming after a second subblock in a decoding order of a plurality of subblocks [Paluri: ¶ [0130]: In each region, search points may be processed in raster scan order starting from the top left going to the bottom right corner of the region].
Regarding Claim 6, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses wherein the template of the corresponding subblock includes a reconstructed sample for the previous subblock [Paluri: ¶ [0053] The prediction signal generated by the predictor (including the inter predictor 221 and/or the intra predictor 222) may be used to generate a reconstructed signal or to generate a residual signal].
Regarding Claim 7, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses wherein, when the first vector is derived according to inter-picture prediction for the current block [Paluri: ¶ [0049]: The predictor may determine whether intra prediction or inter prediction is applied on a current block or CU basis], the reconstructed regions used for the search include a template reconstructed within a current picture to which the current block belongs and a template reconstructed from a reference picture indicated by the first vector [Paluri: ¶ [0051] The inter predictor 221 may derive a predicted block for the current block based on a reference block (reference sample array) specified by a motion vector on a reference picture].
Regarding Claim 8, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses wherein, when the first vector is derived bidirectionally according to inter-picture prediction for the current block [Paluri: ¶ [0101]: A decoder side motion vector refinement (DMVR) mode, an adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR) mode, a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) etc., may be further used as an ancillary mode], the reconstructed regions used for the search include regions which have a size of the subblock and are reconstructed within two reference pictures indicated by the first vector [Paluri: ¶ [0104]: When the bi-prediction is applied, if the reference picture used for the L0 prediction and the reference picture used for the L1 prediction are located in different temporal directions based on the current picture (i.e., if the prediction corresponds to the bi-prediction and the bi-directional prediction), this may be referred to as a true bi-prediction].
Regarding Claim 9, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses wherein the deriving of the second vector includes searching for two second vectors based on BM cost between a first reference subblock [Paluri: ¶ [0122] Referring more specifically to multi-pass DMVR, in the first pass of MDMVR, a refined MV may be derived by applying BM (bilateral matching) to the coding block] corresponding to the size of the subblock around a first position indicated by the first vector within a first reference picture and a second reference block corresponding to the size of the subblock around a second position indicated by the first vector within a second reference picture [Paluri: ¶ [0121]-[0123]].
Regarding Claim 10, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses wherein the searching of the two second vectors includes searching for the two second vectors in an integer-pel unit and refining in a fractional-pel unit the two second vectors searched in the integer-pel unit [Paluri: ¶ [0125] The existing fractional sample refinement may be further applied to derive the final deltaMV. The refined MVs after the first pass may be derived as follows. [0126] MV0_pass1=MV0+deltaMV [0127] MV1_pass1=MV1−deltaMV].
Regarding Claim 11, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses wherein the searching of the two second vectors further includes refining the two second vectors obtained in the fractional-pel unit according to a BDOF technique for a subblock with a size smaller than that of the subblock [Paluri: ¶ [0106]: In order to improve the limitation of the skip mode and/or the merge mode, the motion vector may be refined by applying a Decoder-side Motion Vector Refinement (DMVR) mode, a Bi-directional optical flow (BDOF) mode, etc. The DMVR and BDOF modes may be used when the true bi-prediction is applied to the current block].
Regarding Claim 12, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses further comprising: storing the second vector in a vector buffer and/or a history-based buffer [Paluri: ¶ [0213] For example, the granularity for the decoder side motion vector refinement may be represented by defining two variables, Gran.sub.x and Gran.sub.y. The two variables Gran.sub.x and Gran.sub.y may represent the granularity of the buffer for maintaining the refined motion vector].
Regarding Claim 13, Paluri discloses all the limitations of Claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Paluri discloses wherein the storing stores the second vector in a minimum block unit at a corresponding position [Paluri: ¶ [0188] In addition, for example, in determining the granularity for the width of the block (e.g., Gran.sub.x) and the granularity for the height of the block (e.g., Gran.sub.y), the minimum sub-CU size and minimum subblock size may be used. In this case, the minimum sub-CU size may be reduced to a smaller size, such as 8 or 4, and the minimum subblock size may be increased to a size greater than 16, such as 32, 64, and/or other appropriate values. Therefore, the granularity for the decoder side motion vector refinement may be variable and applied unevenly compared to the existing method].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paluri et al. (US 2024/0406403 A1).
A bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream 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 the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a 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 15 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: While various calculations to determine a smallest template matching cost are known, the specific equation required has not been found in the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
