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 submitted on 10/13/2021 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends:
“The combined teaching of Chang and Yoo does not teach or suggest at all “[1] predicting one or more reference samples based on motion information derived from another block.” (Remarks of 10/16/2025)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Fig. 9 illustrates an example in which a position of a reference sample located in a prediction direction of the directional intra-prediction mode is a fractional sample position. In this case, a prediction sample of the target sample is derived based on integer samples adjacent to the left and right of the reference sample.
As disclosed in paragraph [0111] of Yoo, since only an integer sample value near the fractional sample position is present, the coding device may predict the reference sample of the fractional sample location based on the interpolation filter, and the value of the reference sample of the predicted fractional sample position may be copied as a sample value of the prediction sample of the target sample. One of ordinary skill would understand that interpolation filter selection may be based on an intra-prediction mode of a current block.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 21-25, 27-32, and 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 10 3as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US 20190208195 A1) (hereinafter Chang) in view of Yoo et al. (US 20200036970 A1) (hereinafter Yoo).
Regarding claim 21, Chang discloses:
A method for video encoding, the method comprising: coding a current block into a bitstream, the coding includes: [See Chang, ¶ 0105, 0135-0139, 0141 discloses an entropy encoding unit may perform CAVLC, CABAC, SBAC, PIPE coding or another entropy coding technique to a current block and generating an encoded bitstream.]
performing intra prediction of the current block using the predicted one or more reference samples. [See Chang, ¶ 0058, 0136-0137 discloses an intra prediction unit may determine, along the prediction mode derived for a block unit, one of the predictors for each of the block elements based on the reference samples determined from the neighboring blocks.]
Chang does not appear to explicitly disclose:
predicting one or more reference samples based on motion information derived from another block; and
However, Yoo discloses:
predicting one or more reference samples based on motion information derived from another block; and [See Yoo, ¶ 0111 discloses the target sample may be predicted based on the reference sample of the fractional sample position as shown in FIG. 9. In this case, since only an integer sample value near the fractional sample position is present, the coding device may predict the reference sample of the fractional sample location based on the interpolation filter, and the value of the reference sample of the predicted fractional sample position may be copied as a sample value of the prediction sample of the target sample.]
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 Chang to add the teachings of Yoo in order to determine the accuracy of a predicted block according to the accuracy of an interpolation filter.
Regarding claim 22, Chang in view of Yoo discloses all the limitations of claim 21.
Chang discloses:
wherein the performing of the intra prediction of the current block further comprises: generating prediction samples, based on the predicted one or more reference samples, according to a planar intra prediction mode. [See Chang, ¶ 0049, 0067 discloses where indices are assigned to the intra modes each having an intra prediction angle. Each of the first candidate modes and the second candidate modes may correspond to one of a planar mode, a DC mode, and a plurality of intra modes 2-66 in Table 1. Further, that the intra prediction unit may divide the candidate modes into a first mode group and a second mode group. In the implementation, the candidate modes in the first mode group may be a plurality of default modes selected from the mode list, and the candidate modes in the second mode group may be a plurality of added modes selected from the mode list for replacing at least one of the default modes. The default modes in the first mode group may include a planar mode, a DC mode, and a plurality of first directional modes, and the added modes in the second mode group may include a plurality of second directional modes.]
Regarding claim 23, Chang in view of Yoo discloses all the limitations of claim 21.
Chang discloses:
wherein the performing of the intra prediction of the current block further comprises: generating prediction samples, based on the predicted one or more reference samples, according to an angular intra prediction mode. [See Chang, ¶ 0049, 0067 discloses where indices are assigned to the intra modes each having an intra prediction angle. Each of the first candidate modes and the second candidate modes may correspond to one of a planar mode, a DC mode, and a plurality of intra modes 2-66 in Table 1. Further, that the intra prediction unit may divide the candidate modes into a first mode group and a second mode group. In the implementation, the candidate modes in the first mode group may be a plurality of default modes selected from the mode list, and the candidate modes in the second mode group may be a plurality of added modes selected from the mode list for replacing at least one of the default modes. The default modes in the first mode group may include a planar mode, a DC mode, and a plurality of first directional modes, and the added modes in the second mode group may include a plurality of second directional modes.]
Regarding claim 24, Chang in view of Yoo discloses all the limitations of claim 21.
Chang discloses:
wherein the performing of the intra prediction of the current block further comprises: generating prediction samples, based on the predicted one or more reference samples, according to a DC intra prediction mode. [See Chang, ¶ 0049, 0067 discloses where indices are assigned to the intra modes each having an intra prediction angle. Each of the first candidate modes and the second candidate modes may correspond to one of a planar mode, a DC mode, and a plurality of intra modes 2-66 in Table 1. Further, that the intra prediction unit may divide the candidate modes into a first mode group and a second mode group. In the implementation, the candidate modes in the first mode group may be a plurality of default modes selected from the mode list, and the candidate modes in the second mode group may be a plurality of added modes selected from the mode list for replacing at least one of the default modes. The default modes in the first mode group may include a planar mode, a DC mode, and a plurality of first directional modes, and the added modes in the second mode group may include a plurality of second directional modes.]
Regarding claim 25, Chang in view of Yoo discloses all the limitations of claim 21.
Chang discloses:
wherein the current block is a coding unit (CU) and wherein the another block is a block neighboring the current block. [See Chang, ¶ 0058, 0134-0137 discloses a luminance block and the at least one chrominance block may be further divided to generate macroblocks, coding tree units (CTUs), coding blocks (CBs), sub-divisions thereof, and/or another equivalent coding unit. An intra prediction unit may determine, along the prediction mode derived for a block unit, one of the predictors for each of the block elements based on the reference samples determined from the neighboring blocks.]
Regarding claim 27, Chang in view of Yoo discloses all the limitations of claim 21.
Chang discloses:
wherein the predicted one or more reference samples are from at least one line of reference samples, the line of reference samples is arranged along the right edge of the current block, the bottom edge of the current block, the left edge of the current block, or the top edge of the current block. [See Chang, ¶ 0046, Fig. 4 illustrates a current block unit (411) illustrates a plurality of neighboring reference samples. Particularly, the prediction process unit 2222 may receive the reference samples 412 neighboring with the block unit 411. The reference samples 412 includes a plurality of first reference samples 4121 located above the block unit 411 and a plurality of second reference samples 4122 located in the left of the block unit 411.]
Regarding claim 28, 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 28 thus recites analogous limitations to claim 21, and is therefore rejected based on the decoding of claim 28 performing the complimentary operations of the corresponding encoding process with respect to video encoding method claim 21 as such.
Regarding claim 29, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 22, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 30, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 23, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 31, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 24, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 32, Chang in view of Yoo discloses all the limitations of claim 28.
Chang discloses:
further comprising: decoding from the bitstream a syntax element, indicating that the decoding of the current block is to be performed according to the predicting and the performing steps. [See Chang, ¶ 0032-0033, 0035 discloses receiving the bitstream including a plurality of syntax elements from the second interface 123 in FIG. 1, and perform a parsing operation on the bitstream to extract syntax elements from the bitstream. Further, the prediction process unit 2222 may receive syntax elements, such as motion vectors, intra modes, partition information, and other syntax information, from the entropy decoding unit 2221.]
Regarding claim 35, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 in the form of “an apparatus” rather than “a method”, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 1 for corresponding motivation statement.
Further, claim 35 recites the following limitations which are not explicitly found from claim 21, but are addressed as follows:
Chang discloses:
An apparatus for video encoding, comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to code a current block into a bitstream, the coding includes: [See Chang, ¶ 0022 discloses persons skilled in the art will immediately recognize that any coding function(s) or algorithm(s) described in the present disclosure may be implemented by hardware, software or a combination of software and hardware. Described functions may correspond to modules may be software, hardware, firmware, or any combination thereof. The software implementation may comprise computer executable instructions stored on computer readable medium such as memory or other type of storage devices. For example, one or more microprocessors or general purpose computers with communication processing capability may be programmed with corresponding executable instructions and carry out the described network function(s) or algorithm(s). The microprocessors or general purpose computers may be formed of applications specific integrated circuitry (ASIC), programmable logic arrays, and/or using one or more digital signal processor (DSPs).]
Regarding claim 36, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 22, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 37, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 23, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 38, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 24, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 39, 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 39 thus recites analogous limitations to claim 35, and is therefore rejected based on the decoding apparatus of claim 39 performing the complimentary operations of the corresponding encoding device with respect to video encoding apparatus claim 35 as such.
Regarding claim 40, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 32, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Yoo in view of Iwamura et al: “CE4-2.11: MVPlanar prediction”, 11. JVET MEETING; 20180711-20180718; LJUBLJANA; (THE JOINT VIDEO EXPLORATION TEAM OF ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29/WG11 AND ITU-T SG.16), no. JVET-K0349 3 July 2018, XP030198920 (hereinafter Iwamura).
Regarding claim 26, Chang in view of Yoo discloses all the limitations of claim 21.
Chang in view of Yoo does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the current block is a sub-CU and wherein the another block is a corresponding block from a collocated picture, the corresponding block is determined based on motion information derived from a block neighboring the current block.
However, Iwamura discloses:
wherein the current block is a sub-CU and wherein the another block is a corresponding block from a collocated picture, the corresponding block is determined based on motion information derived from a block neighboring the current block. [See Iwamura, pg. 1 and pg. 2 discloses sub-block motion vector compensation prediction, where sub-CU MVs are derived by interpolating motion vectors of neighboring blocks (of a collocated picture) by position dependent weighted average. It is noted that the interpolation is carried out in a similar way as intra planar prediction. Particularly, nCbW and nCbH respectively denote width and height of the coding blocks.]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with video compression technologies and would have understood, as evidenced by Iwamura, that in order to improve bitrate savings in coding efficiency, providing a sub-CU motion vector derivation 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 sub-CU motion vector derivation as taught by Iwamura in the system of Chang in view of Yoo 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.
Claim(s) 33 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Yoo in view of Li et al. (US 20190141318 A1) (hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 33, Chang in view of Yoo discloses all the limitations of claim 32.
Chang in view of Yoo does not appear to explicitly disclose:
further comprising: decoding from the bitstream a syntax element, indicating whether the predicted one or more reference samples are from a bottom reference line, a right reference line, or both.
However, Li discloses:
further comprising: decoding from the bitstream a syntax element, indicating whether the predicted one or more reference samples are from a bottom reference line, a right reference line, or both. [See Li, ¶ 0177-0180 discloses signaling a syntax element for indicating one or multiple candidate reference lines. Particularly, Fig. 12 illustrates bottom/below-left sample values (1250), and top/above sample values (1230) corresponding with candidate reference lines.]
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 Chang in view of Yoo to add the teachings of Li in order to enable jointly indicating multiple reference line indices with a single syntax element (Li, paragraph [0179]).
Regarding claim 41, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 33, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 33.
Claim(s) 34 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Yoo in view of Rapaka et al. (US 20140064360 A1) (hereinafter Rapaka).
Regarding claim 34, Chang in view of Yoo discloses all the limitations of claim 32.
Chang in view of Yoo does not appear to explicitly discloses:
further comprising: decoding from the bitstream a syntax element, indicating whether the current block is a CU or a sub-CU.
However, Rapaka discloses:
further comprising: decoding from the bitstream a syntax element, indicating whether the current block is a CU or a sub-CU. [See Rapaka, ¶ 0059-0061 discloses that each node of the quadtree data structure may provide syntax data for the corresponding CU. For example, a node in the quadtree may include a split flag, indicating whether the CU corresponding to the node is split into sub-CUs. Syntax elements for a CU may be defined recursively, and may depend on whether the CU is split into sub-CUs. If a CU is not split further, it is referred as a leaf-CU. In this disclosure, four sub-CUs of a leaf-CU will also be referred to as leaf-CUs even if there is no explicit splitting of the original leaf-CU. For example, if a CU at 16×16 size is not split further, the four 8×8 sub-CUs will also be referred to as leaf-CUs although the 16×16 CU was never split.]
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 Chang in view of Yoo to add the teachings of Rapaka in order to use syntax data to signal sub-CU partitioning, particularly with respect to nodes in a quadtree data structure.
Regarding claim 42, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 34, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 34.
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 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