Patent Application 17376593 - MOTION CANDIDATE LISTS THAT USE LOCAL - Rejection

Patent Application 17376593 - MOTION CANDIDATE LISTS THAT USE LOCAL

Title: MOTION CANDIDATE LISTS THAT USE LOCAL ILLUMINATION COMPENSATION

Application Information

• Invention Title: MOTION CANDIDATE LISTS THAT USE LOCAL ILLUMINATION COMPENSATION
• Application Number: 17376593
• Submission Date: 2025-05-20T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2021-07-15T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2021-07-15T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 375
• National Sub-Class: 240160
• Examiner Employee Number: 88950
• Art Unit: 2483
• Tech Center: 2400

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    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 (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-20. Claims 2 has been cancelled, and no amendments have been made. Accordingly, claims 1, and 3-20 remain pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2025  have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., when comparing two candidate motion information, the local illumination compensation (LIC) flag is used in the comparison) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims recite only “comparing two candidate motion information using the LIC flag”. This is interpreted reasonably to mean that two pieces of candidate motion information which use the LIC flag are compared. Nowhere in the claim language is it required that the LIC flag is used directly in the comparison.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the combination of Han et al. and Ye fails to teach “comparing two candidate motion information using the LIC flag”, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 91, Han et al. teaches “To mitigate or eliminate the reduced efficiency caused by having identical candidates in a list, video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may apply a pruning process, by which video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 compare one candidate against one or more other candidates in the current candidate list. In turn, video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may eliminate all instances beyond the first instance of the identical candidates, based on the comparison. In this way, video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may avoid inserting identical candidates in a given candidate list, at least to a certain extent. To reduce the computational complexity of pruning, video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may apply only a limited number of pruning process instances, instead of comparing each potential candidate with all of the other existing candidates.” Here it clearly and unambiguously teaches comparison of candidate motion information. In Paragraphs 154-170 Han et al. clearly and unambiguously teaches that the candidate motion information being compared may be using associated LIC flags. For example, in Paragraph 154 Han et al. teaches “According to various techniques of this disclosure, video encoder 20 may derive the LIC flag of temporal merge candidate(s) from spatial neighbors of the block currently being encoded. In some examples of the derivation techniques described here, video encoder 20 may derive the LIC flag for the temporal candidates from spatial candidates that have already been added to the candidate list. More specifically, according to these examples, video encoder 20 may derive the LIC flag of the temporal candidate by only checking those spatial candidates that use the same reference picture as the temporal candidate.” Thus, these teachings are deemed to teach the claim limitations as filed as they clearly teach candidate motion information that uses LIC flags, and also comparing this candidate motion information against other candidate motion information.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.  See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case Applicant argues that Ye fails to teach “wherein the method further comprises: comparing two candidate motion information using the LIC flag, and wherein the performing of the conversion is based on the comparing” and Ye is not even relied upon for this teaching. Han et al. as applied in the rejection below, is relied upon to teach this.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected using the same combination of prior art as used before.


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.

Claim(s) 1, 3-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (US 20210076029 A1) in view of Ye (US 20200204807 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Han et al. teaches an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor (Paragraphs 9-10), cause the processor to:
maintain a table that includes entries that represent a past history of motion information used for a conversion between a current block of a video comprising video blocks and a bitstream of the video (Paragraphs 151-154), wherein a local illumination compensation (LIC) flag is stored for each entry of the motion information (Paragraph 152, “according to existing LIC algorithms, the temporal candidates may need to store the LIC flags of each reference in a reference buffer of video encoder 20”); and
perform the conversion of the current block based on the entries in the table (Paragraphs 151-154),
wherein the LIC flag indicates a use of an LIC coding tool that uses a linear model of illumination changes for the conversion (Paragraphs 6-11; Paragraph 30; Paragraphs 151-154);
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to: compare two candidate motion information using the LIC flag, and wherein the performing of the conversion is based on the comparing (Paragraph 91; Paragraphs 154-170).
However, Han et al. does not explicitly teach maintaining a history-based motion vector prediction (HMVP) table, wherein a local illumination compensation (LIC) flag is stored for each entry of the motion information and is stored together with the motion information in the HMVP table; and the HMVP table.
Ye, however, teaches maintaining a history-based motion vector prediction (HMVP) table, wherein a local illumination compensation (LIC) flag is stored for each entry of the motion information and is stored together with the motion information in the HMVP table; and the HMVP table (Paragraphs 47-49; Paragraphs 61-64; Paragraphs 73-74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video processing as taught in Han et al. to include explicitly the HMVP table as defined in the claim language as amended as taught in Ye above, in order to increase compatibility of coding methods and more efficiently code images (See Ye Paragraph 4)
Method claim 1 is drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 18 and is rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding Claim 3, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches comparing two candidate motion information without using the LIC flag, and wherein the performing of the conversion is based on the comparing (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-162).
Regarding Claim 4, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein a merge candidate from an entry in the table includes data associated with the LIC flag that is copied to the merge candidate (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-164).
However, Han et al. does not teach the HMVP table.
Ye, however, teaches the HMVP table (Paragraphs 47-49; Paragraphs 61-64; Paragraphs 73-74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video processing as taught in Han et al. to include explicitly the HMVP table as defined in the claim language as amended as taught in Ye above, in order to increase compatibility of coding methods and more efficiently code images (See Ye Paragraph 4)
Regarding Claim 5, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein the table is updated using the LIC flag (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-164).
However, Han et al. does not teach the HMVP table.
Ye, however, teaches the HMVP table (Paragraphs 47-49; Paragraphs 61-64; Paragraphs 73-74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video processing as taught in Han et al. to include explicitly the HMVP table as defined in the claim language as amended as taught in Ye above, in order to increase compatibility of coding methods and more efficiently code images (See Ye Paragraph 4)
Regarding Claim 6, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein the table is updated without using the LIC flag and a default LIC flag value is set for each entry of the motion information (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-164; Paragraphs 168-171).
However, Han et al. does not teach the HMVP table.
Ye, however, teaches the HMVP table (Paragraphs 47-49; Paragraphs 61-64; Paragraphs 73-74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video processing as taught in Han et al. to include explicitly the HMVP table as defined in the claim language as amended as taught in Ye above, in order to increase compatibility of coding methods and more efficiently code images (See Ye Paragraph 4)
Regarding Claim 7, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein in case that the current block is coded with an LIC coding mode, an updating of the table is skipped (Paragraphs 74-77; Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-164; Paragraphs 168-171).
However, Han et al. does not teach the HMVP table.
Ye, however, teaches the HMVP table (Paragraphs 47-49; Paragraphs 61-64; Paragraphs 73-74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video processing as taught in Han et al. to include explicitly the HMVP table as defined in the claim language as amended as taught in Ye above, in order to increase compatibility of coding methods and more efficiently code images (See Ye Paragraph 4)
Regarding Claim 8, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein the current block coded with an LIC coding mode is used to update the table (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-164).
However, Han et al. does not teach the HMVP table.
Ye, however, teaches the HMVP table (Paragraphs 47-49; Paragraphs 61-64; Paragraphs 73-74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video processing as taught in Han et al. to include explicitly the HMVP table as defined in the claim language as amended as taught in Ye above, in order to increase compatibility of coding methods and more efficiently code images (See Ye Paragraph 4)
Regarding Claim 9, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein entries with an enabled LIC coding mode are put in a motion candidate list to be before all or a part of entries with a disabled LIC coding mode (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-167).
Regarding Claim 10, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein entries with a disabled LIC coding mode are put in a motion candidate list to be before all or a part of entries with an enabled LIC coding mode (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-167).
Regarding Claim 11, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein different processes for maintaining the table are performed for a video block coded with the LIC coding mode and for a video block not coded with the LIC coding mode (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-164).
However, Han et al. does not teach the HMVP table.
Ye, however, teaches the HMVP table (Paragraphs 47-49; Paragraphs 61-64; Paragraphs 73-74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video processing as taught in Han et al. to include explicitly the HMVP table as defined in the claim language as amended as taught in Ye above, in order to increase compatibility of coding methods and more efficiently code images (See Ye Paragraph 4)
Regarding Claim 12, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein the table is constructed in an order according to the local illumination compensation (LIC) flag associated with entry of the motion information and/or a type of the entry of the motion information (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-164).
However, Han et al. does not teach the HMVP table.
Ye, however, teaches the HMVP table (Paragraphs 47-49; Paragraphs 61-64; Paragraphs 73-74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video processing as taught in Han et al. to include explicitly the HMVP table as defined in the claim language as amended as taught in Ye above, in order to increase compatibility of coding methods and more efficiently code images (See Ye Paragraph 4)
Regarding Claim 13, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 12, Han et al. further teaches wherein the type of the entry of the motion information is a merge candidate or an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-164).
Regarding Claim 14, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein a motion candidate list for a video block coded with a LIC coding mode does not include an entry of the motion information derived from spatial or temporal neighboring or non-adjacent blocks that are not coded with the LIC coding mode or from candidates with an LIC flag equal to false (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-167).
However, Han et al. does not teach the HMVP candidates.
Ye, however, teaches HMVP candidates (Paragraphs 47-49; Paragraphs 61-64; Paragraphs 73-74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the video processing as taught in Han et al. to include explicitly the HMVP table as defined in the claim language as amended as taught in Ye above, in order to increase compatibility of coding methods and more efficiently code images (See Ye Paragraph 4)
Regarding Claim 15, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein a motion candidate list for a video block not coded with a LIC coding mode does not include an entry of the motion information derived from spatial or temporal neighboring or non-adjacent blocks that are coded with the LIC coding mode or from HMVP candidates with an LIC flag equal to true (Paragraphs 82-92; Paragraphs 151-164).
Regarding Claim 16, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the current block into the bitstream (Paragraph 56).
Regarding Claim 17, Han et al. and Ye teach the method of claim 1, Han et al. further teaches wherein the conversion includes decoding the current block from the bitstream (Paragraph 58).
Claims 19-20 are drawn to similar subject matter as claim 18 above, and are rejected for the same reasons as used above. 
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.

Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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 on 5712727383. 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.





/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483