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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/19/2025, have been fully considered and entered but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission received 2/19/2025 has been entered.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG (US 20190222623 A1) hereinafter HUANG in view of WANG (US 20220159226 A1) (hereinafter WANG) in view of LU et al. (US 20200267392 A1) (hereinafter Lu).
Regarding claim 1,
HUANG teaches a method of video processing, comprising:
performing a conversion between a video comprising a plurality of pictures and a bitstream of the video, wherein each picture comprises an alpha layer “Alpha data” and at least one base layer “RGB data” (Fig. 1);
wherein the bitstream comprises first layer information which is utilized in a first process performed on the at least one base layer (The RGB data is converted into YUV data that is respectively encoded in a video encoder based on a Y channel, a U channel and a V channel [0034]) and second layer information which is utilized in a second process (S204 [0042]; Fig. 2; S303 Fig. 3) different from the first process (S202-S203 [0040][0041]; Fig. 2; S301-S302 Fig. 3) performed on the alpha layer (Alpha data of each pixel obtained after separation is encoded as an independent image frame data of the picture [0034-[0036]; Fig. 1);
HUANG does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the second process comprises a reconstruction in which a second block in the alpha layer is reconstructed based on samples of at least a first block in the at least one base layer;
wherein the second block is reconstructed by performing a bitwise operation on the first block, and
wherein the bitwise operation is denoted by C = R*a+b, or by C = (R<<a)+b, or by C= (R<<a), in each case where C is a sample of the second block, R is a sample of the first block, and a and b are constant.
However, WANG discloses:
wherein the second process comprises a reconstruction in which a second block in the alpha layer is reconstructed based on samples of at least a first block in the at least one base layer; [See Wang, ¶ 0016-0020, ¶ 0067-0080, Fig. 7 discloses reconstructing alpha channel data based on mixed/blended RGB and alpha image data. RGB data, in this case, comprises the base layer.]
wherein the second block is reconstructed by performing a bitwise operation on the first block, and [See Wang, ¶ 0089-0091, Figs. 9-13 discloses bitwise operations for ARGB reconstruction.]
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 Huang to add the teachings of Wang in order to improve coding efficiency by enabling processing of different image layers separately by blending the alpha channel (transparency) with the image data for transmission.
Huang in view of Wang does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the bitwise operation is denoted by C = (R<<a)+b, or by C= (R<<a), in each case where C is a sample of the second block, R is a sample of the first block, and a and b are constant.
However, Lu discloses:
wherein the bitwise operation is denoted by C = (R<<a)+b, or by C= (R<<a), in each case where C is a sample of the second block, R is a sample of the first block, and a and b are constant. [See Lu, ¶ 0131-0132 discloses c=a<<n denoting a binary left shift operation of “a” by “n” bits.]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with video coding technologies and would have understood, as evidenced by Lu, that in order to improve coding efficiency by employing a scaling factor, binary left and right shifting bits would have been beneficial. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to include such binary left and right shifting as taught by Lu in the combined system of Huang in view of Wang in order to obtain this advantage. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2,
HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
HUANG further teaches wherein the at least one base layer corresponds to at least one color channel of the plurality of pictures (The RGB data is converted into YUV data that is respectively encoded in a video encoder based on a Y channel, a U channel and a V channel [0034]), and the alpha layer corresponds to a degree of transparency of the plurality of pictures (Alpha data is binary data means that a value corresponding to the Alpha data can include only 0 or 1. For example, an Alpha value of some pictures includes only 1 or 0, correspondingly representing completely opaque or completely transparent. A quantity of values of the Alpha data may alternatively be more than two. A value corresponding to the Alpha data is usually 8 bits, and magnitude of the value is between 0 and 255 [0030]).
Regarding claim 3,
HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
HUANG further teaches wherein the first layer information is determined based on the first process using a first plurality of syntax elements (“yuv_format”, “lossless_flag “, “yuv_limit_range_flag “… [0081]-[0083]; Table 2) and the second layer information is determined based on the second process using a second plurality of syntax elements different from the first plurality of syntax elements (“alpha_flag” [0079]; Table 2; “alpha_channel_start_code”, “alpha_frame_stream_length” [0095]-[0100]; Table 5).
Regarding claim 4,
HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu teaches all the features of claim 3, as outlined above.
HUANG further teaches wherein the first plurality of syntax elements comprise at least one syntax element that is excluded from the second plurality of syntax elements (“yuv_format”, “lossless_flag “, “yuv_limit_range_flag “… [0081]-[0083]; Table 2).
Regarding claim 20,
HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
HUANG further teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 21,
HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
HUANG further teaches wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (Fig. 1 and 3).
Regarding claims 22-24, are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1, where HUANG teaches decoder/encoder apparatus/method (Fig. 1-3 and 12-15).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG (US 20190222623 A1) hereinafter HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu (US 20220159226 A1) (hereinafter WANG) in view of RUSANOVSKYY et al. (US 20160165262 A1) hereinafter RUSANOVSKYY.
Regarding claim 6,
HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
HUANG and WANG did not explicitly teach wherein the first process, based on the first layer information for the at least one base layer, and the second process, based on the second layer information for the alpha layer, use at least one of a layer-specific intra prediction process or a layer-specific interpolation process.
However, RUSANOVSKYY teaches wherein the first process, based on the first layer information for the at least one base layer, and the second process, based on the second layer information for the alpha layer, use at least one of a layer-specific intra prediction process (270, Fig. 2; The alpha data can be obtained from a multi-view video signal or can be obtained using alpha data of a neighboring block [0051]) or a layer-specific interpolation process.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of RUSANOVSKYY to the teachings of HUANG and WANG. The motivation for such an addition would be to reduce the number of bits of a multi-view video signal for encoding/decoding alpha data (RUSANOVSKYY [0008]).
Claims 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUANG (US 20190222623 A1) hereinafter HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu (US 20220159226 A1) (hereinafter WANG) in view of JEONG et al. (US 20220021900 A1) hereinafter JEONG
Regarding claim 16,
HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above, which further teaches encoding/decoding alpha channel as a luma “Y” channel.
HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu did not explicitly teach wherein only integer motion vectors and/or motion vector differences are used.
JEONG teaches wherein only integer motion vectors and/or motion vector differences are used (the motion vector difference is in the integer pixel unit [0051][0331]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of JEONG to the teachings of HUANG and WANG. The motivation for such an addition would be to increase coding efficiency (JEONG [0331]).
Regarding claim 17,
HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above, which further teaches encoding/decoding alpha channel as a luma “Y” channel.
HUANG did not explicitly teach wherein a particular partition type of a plurality of partition types for partitioning prediction blocks are used.
JEONG teaches wherein a particular partition type of a plurality of partition types for partitioning prediction blocks are used (various partitioning modes, Fig. 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of JEONG to the teachings of HUANG and WANG. The motivation for such an addition would be to efficiently encode and decode (JEONG [0005]).
Regarding claim 19,
HUANG in view of WANG in view of Lu teaches all the features of claim 1, as outlined above.
JEONG discloses wherein transform units used to encode a prediction residual are identical with coding units for performance of the second process on the alpha layer. (The transform block may be equal to or smaller than the coding unit [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of JEONG to the teachings of HUANG and WANG. The motivation for such an addition would be to efficiently encode and decode (JEONG [0005]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 on 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