DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 filed on 10/01/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the cited prior art is deficient for failing to teach or suggest the features added by way of amendment. Examiner finds the argument moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. First, Examiner notes there is a “new matter” rejection levied on the amendments. See 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, infra. Second, while the teachings of Yu appear sufficient to teach or suggest the amended features drawn to shifting to input bitdepth, the rejection now additionally relies on the teachings Chen to supplement the teachings of Yu to expedite prosecution. Examiner also notes Zhou (US 10,462,480 B2), cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action for its strength in teaching Applicant’s averred feature. Because the weight of evidence provided on this record demonstrates Applicant’s claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the prior art, the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 17–20, and 23–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. This is a new matter rejection. The independent claims recite features of an N-tap filter with output bitdepth that has no support in the Specification. Applicant has failed to particularly point out applicable sections of the original disclosure supporting the current amendments. “New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirements.” MPEP 2163(I)(B). “[W]ith respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims.” MPEP 2163(II)(A). See also MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(b). Because Applicant’s Specification is silent with respect to N-tap filters, the amendments represent new matter in violation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5–8, 11–14, 17–20, and 23–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al., “CE10: Triangular prediction unit mode (CE10.3.1 and CE10.3.2),” JVET-K0144-v2, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 11th Meeting: Ljubljana, SI, 10–18 Jul. 2018 (herein “Liao”), Yu (US 2016/0255359 A1), Furht (US 2021/0168409 A1), and Chen (US 2015/0382009 A1).
Examiner notes Applicant’s published paragraphs [0035]–[0039] appear to describe the problem to be solved by the state-of-the-art triangular prediction process. Examiner finds Applicant’s claims do not even fully address the problem Applicant’s Specification describes as solving. For example, nowhere in the claims is there reference to triangular prediction. Secondly, Examiner finds Applicant’s Figs. 3–6 appear to be nothing more than a restatement of the prior art as Applicant admits in published paragraphs [0035]–[0039]. More specifically, as Applicant’s published paragraph [0037] explains, the prior art’s solution is depicted in Applicant’s Fig. 6 and restricts the bi-prediction to a uni-prediction process to decrease memory bandwidth. To the extent an invention is described, it appears the invention is Applicant’s Fig. 7, which examiner finds is not particularly claimed in the independent claims.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Liao, Yu, Furht, and Chen teaches or suggests a method, comprising: obtaining a first information indicating a splitting of a block of a picture with a geometric partition (Liao, Section 1: teaches the triangular partitioning and its direction are signaled in the bitstream) among more than two geometric partition patterns (It appears Liao only teaches the triangular partitioning from vertex to vertex in either positive or negative sloping segment line configurations, but does not teach more angles resulting in more partition patterns; However, in the same field of endeavor Furht does teach more than two patterns based on segmenting line; Furht, Fig. 9: teaches that there are several different geometric patterns based on angle of segmenting line; Furht, ¶ 0058: teaches signaling indices for indicating an angle along a partition line segment dividing two partitions); obtaining a second information indicating a direction of an edge with the geometric partition (Liao, Section 1: teaches the triangular partitioning and its direction are signaled in the bitstream); obtaining a third information indicating a position of an edge with the geometric partition (Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the two predictions from the two triangles are combined to form a complete prediction for the block wherein samples along a shared edge between the triangles are combined using weighted averaging of the first triangle and the second triangle; Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the edge samples are derived using position-dependent weighting factors; Examiner notes Liao’s Fig. 2 is copied as Applicant’s Fig. 3; As the common figure illustrates, the samples near the partition’s edge are derived using a weighted average, for example, the left-most formula explains that sample position is calculated by weighting the first predictor (P1) by 2/8 and the second predictor (P2) by 6/8 such that the sample forms part of the weighted, combined third predictor (the overall predicted block)); processing a first reference picture with a first N-tap filter and shifting an output of the first N-tap filter to obtain a first predictor for the block of the picture with an output bit depth after uni-prediction (Liao, Section 1: teaches a block split into triangular partitions for inter-prediction wherein a first triangular prediction unit (PU1) and a second triangular prediction unit (PU-2) are each separately predicted by reference to a reference picture; Chen, ¶ 0129: teaches that in HEVC, fractional interpolation for inter-prediction can use N-tap filters to determine an intermediate prediction signal that is shifted to an output bit-depth precision; Note this limitation represents new matter and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)), wherein the output bit depth after uni-prediction is larger than a processing bit depth (Yu, ¶ 0156: teaches that the skilled artisan is aware of how to treat weighted prediction in the art such that the potentially larger bit depth resulting from weighted prediction needs to be rounded, right-shifted, and clipped back down to the original bit depth; see also Chen, ¶ 0129, discussed supra; see also additional art relevant to this concept cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; In other words, the prior art as a whole, which includes Yu and the other cited references under the Conclusion Section of this Action, demonstrates awareness that weighted prediction often occurs at bit depths either matching or exceeding the original bit depth potentially requiring clipping back down to processing bit depth); processing a second reference picture with a second N-tap filter and shifting an output of the second N-tap filter to obtain a second predictor for the block of the picture (see previous limitation; Liao, Section 1: teaches a block split into triangular partitions for inter-prediction wherein a first triangular prediction unit (PU1) and a second triangular prediction unit (PU-2) are each separately predicted by reference to a reference picture), with the output bit depth after uni-prediction (Yu, ¶ 0156: teaches that the skilled artisan is aware of how to treat weighted prediction in the art such that the potentially larger bit depth resulting from weighted prediction needs to be rounded, right-shifted, and clipped back down to the original bit depth; see also Chen, ¶ 0129, discussed supra; see also additional art relevant to this concept cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; In other words, the prior art as a whole, which includes Yu and the other cited references under the Conclusion Section of this Action, demonstrates awareness that weighted prediction often occurs at bit depths either matching or exceeding the original bit depth potentially requiring clipping back down to processing bit depth); obtaining a weighted average of the first predictor and the second predictor; wherein a sample of the weighted average is obtained by applying a first weight to a sample of the first predictor and by applying a second weight to a co-located sample of the second predictor, wherein the first weight and the second weight are responsive to the first information, second information, the third information and to a position of the sample in the block (Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the two predictions from the two triangles are combined to form a complete prediction for the block wherein samples along a shared edge between the triangles are combined using weighted averaging of the first triangle and the second triangle; Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the edge samples are derived using position-dependent weighting factors; Examiner notes Liao’s Fig. 2 is copied as Applicant’s Fig. 3; As the common figure illustrates, the samples near the partition’s edge are derived using a weighted average, for example, the left-most formula explains that sample position is calculated by weighting the first predictor (P1) by 2/8 and the second predictor (P2) by 6/8 such that the sample forms part of the weighted, combined third predictor (the overall predicted block)), and wherein a bit depth of the weighted average is larger than the output bit depth after uni-prediction; obtaining a third predictor for the block by shifting and clipping the weighted average to the processing bit depth (Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the two predictions from the two triangles are combined to form a complete prediction for the block wherein samples along a shared edge between the triangles are combined using weighted averaging of the first triangle and the second triangle; Liao, Section 1: teaches the weighting has 8 as a denominator, which is not an accident since 8-bit codecs are a common bit depth; see Pu, ¶ 0019 under the Conclusion Section of this action for support for this finding; Yu, ¶ 0156: teaches that the skilled artisan is aware of how to treat weighted prediction in the art such that the potentially larger bit depth resulting from weighted prediction needs to be rounded, right-shifted, and clipped back down to the original bit depth; see also Chen, ¶ 0129, discussed supra; see also additional art relevant to this concept cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; In other words, the prior art as a whole, which includes Yu and the other cited references under the Conclusion Section of this Action, demonstrates awareness that weighted prediction often occurs at bit depths either matching or exceeding the original bit depth potentially requiring clipping back down to processing bit depth); and decoding the block of the picture using the third predictor generated by a geometric partition mode (Yu, ¶ 0009: teaches the algorithms described in the art are intended for decoder standardization).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Liao, with those of Yu, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor and because combining Liao’s weighted prediction technique with Yu’s teaching that weighted prediction can be processed at a higher bit depth and then rounded back down to the original bit depth represents nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Liao and Yu used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Liao and Yu, with those of Furht, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice geometric partitioning in video coding would be led to their relevant teachings and because combining Furht’s signaling of partitioning angle for triangular partitions with the triangular partitioning angles described in Liao represents nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Liao, Yu, and Furht used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Liao, Yu, and Furht, with those of Chen, because all four references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice geometric partitioning in video coding would be led to their relevant teachings and because combining Chen’s N-tap interpolation filters and shifting an intermediate bitdepth to an output bitdepth with Yu’s shifting to an output bitdepth represents nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Liao, Yu, Furht, and Chen used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liao, Yu, Furht, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the first predictor is obtained for at least a first part of the block; and the second predictor is obtained for at least a second part of the block (Liao, Section 1: teaches a block split into triangular partitions for inter-prediction wherein a first triangular prediction unit (PU1) and a second triangular prediction unit (PU-2) are each separately predicted by reference to a reference picture).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liao, Yu, Furht, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the first weight and the second weight depend on a distance between the sample and an edge of the geometric partition of the block, wherein a position of the edge is derived from the first information and the second information (Liao, Section 1 and Fig. 2: teach that the edge samples are derived using position-dependent weighting factors; Examiner notes Liao’s Fig. 2 is copied as Applicant’s Fig. 3; As the common figure illustrates, the samples near the partition’s edge are derived using a weighted average, for example, the left-most formula explains that sample position is calculated by weighting the first predictor (P1) by 2/8 and the second predictor (P2) by 6/8 such that the sample forms part of the weighted, combined third predictor (the overall predicted block)).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liao, Yu, Furht, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 5, wherein the block of the picture comprises a luma component and two chroma components and wherein the first weight and the second weight further depend on the luma component or chroma component (Liao, Section 1: teaches the weighting factors are dependent on the samples being luma samples or chroma samples).
Claim 7 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 8 lists the same elements as claim 2, but in apparatus form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in apparatus form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 12 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in apparatus form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 2, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists the same elements as claim 5, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 6, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 7, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 8, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 8 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 23 lists the same elements as claim 11, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 11 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 24 lists the same elements as claim 12, but is drawn to encoding rather than decoding. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 12 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 25 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to a CRM rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 26 lists the same elements as claim 13, but is drawn to a CRM rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 13 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pu (US 2015/0098503 A1) teaches weighted prediction is based on bit depth of the input video and that right shifts are used to control overflow from multiplication operations (see e.g. ¶¶ 0019 and 0056).
Sato (US 2017/0034525 A1) teaches that granularity finer than the bit depth is desirable for weighted prediction (e.g. ¶ 0064).
Park (US 2013/0107959 A1) teaches using distance and angle to define the split line for geometric partitioning (e.g. Fig. 6 and ¶ 0059).
Liao (US 2021/0051335 A1) (herein Liao-2) teaches triangle partitioning can be signaled using a partition mode index, an angle index, or a distance index (¶ 0349). Combining Liao-2’s signaling of partitioning distance for triangular partitions with the triangular partitioning angles described in Liao represents nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
Ye (US 2020/0221122 A1) teaches MVs calculated at fractional sample positions could have higher bit-depth than the input bit-depth and may be rounded down to the input bit-depth prior to an averaging operation (¶ 0126).
Kim (US 2014/0140409 A1) teaches increasing bit depth for motion compensation and reducing the bit-depth back to picture bit-depth either before or after calculating the weighted average (¶ 0108).
Zhou (US 10,462,480 B2) teaches sub-pixel interpolation using e.g. an 8-tap filter (e.g. col. 21, ll. 1–52; col. 22, ll. 29–51) and additional shifting after weighed sample prediction “so that the interpolated sample values have the correct bit depth (col. 35, ln. 24–col. 36, ln. 19).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL J. HESS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/MICHAEL J HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481