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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. 2013/0136175), hereinafter Wang in view of Zhao et al. (U.S. 2021/0084309), hereinafter Zhao.
Regarding claims 1, 19 and 20, Wang discloses 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 (Wang [0044] and [0164]), cause the processor to:
determine, for a conversion between a leaf prediction unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, (Wang figs. 7 and 9) whether a prediction mode is allowed for the leaf prediction unit according to a rule (Wang Abstract); and
perform the conversion based on the determination (Wang figs. 7 and 9), and
wherein the bitstream includes a first syntax element indicating the prediction mode selected for the leaf prediction unit, and wherein the first syntax element excludes indications for all prediction modes that are disallowed for the leaf prediction unit (Wang [0106]).
Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule specifies that whether the prediction mode is allowed for the leaf prediction unit depends on whether the leaf prediction unit is a non-split prediction tree unit, or is split from a prediction tree unit (PTU) or a prediction unit (PU).
However, Zhao teaches wherein the rule specifies that whether the prediction mode is allowed for the leaf prediction unit depends on whether the leaf prediction unit is a non-split prediction tree unit, or is split from a prediction tree unit (PTU) or a prediction unit (PU) (Zhao [0194]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Zhao to avoid small chroma block intra prediction and improve coding efficiency as a result of not allowing certain prediction modes (Zhao [0002]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency as a result of not allowing all modes.
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one of the following prediction modes is disallowed for the leaf prediction unit when the leaf prediction unit is split from the PTU or the PU: an intra mode; a combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP) mode; a template-matching-based inter mode; or a local illumination compensation (LIC) mode (Zhao [0194]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the bitstream does not include any syntax element indicating any prediction mode that is disallowed for the leaf prediction unit (Wang [0106]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rule further specifies that an operation of the prediction mode selected for the leaf prediction unit depends on whether the leaf prediction unit is the non-split prediction tree unit, or is split from the PTU or the PU (Zhao [0194]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein application of a transform, an inverse-transform, a quantization, or a dequantization to a coding unit (CU) containing the leaf prediction unit depends on whether the leaf prediction unit is split or not (Wang [0061] and Zhao [0091] and [0106]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein whether the PTU is allowed to be split depends on at least one of: a slice type, a color component, a second syntax element signaled in the bitstream, or an application of a specific coding tool (Zhao [0195] and Table 7).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the second syntax element is contained in a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a picture header, or a slice header (Wang [0114]).
Regarding claim 17, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (Wang fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (Wang fig. 1).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (U.S. 2020/0021833), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 5 (see above). Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein a template of a template-matching-based inter mode employs prediction samples, instead of reconstruction samples, when the leaf prediction unit is split from the PTU or the PU.
However, Xu teaches, wherein a template of a template-matching-based inter mode employs prediction samples, instead of reconstruction samples, when the leaf prediction unit is split from the PTU or the PU (Xu [0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Wang in view of Zhao with the missing limitations as taught by Xu to avoid using an unavailable region and improve coding efficiency as a result of not using unavailable reconstructed samples (Xu [0124]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chuang et al. (U.S. 2018/0098086), hereinafter Chuang.
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 5. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein a template for the leaf prediction unit in local illumination compensation (LIC) mode employs prediction samples, instead of reconstruction samples, when the leaf prediction unit is split from the PTU or the PU.
However, Chuang teaches, wherein a template for the leaf prediction unit in local illumination compensation (LIC) mode employs prediction samples, instead of reconstruction samples, when the leaf prediction unit is split from the PTU or the PU (Chuang [0165]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Wang in view of Zhao with the missing limitations as taught by Chuang to efficiently compensate variations in illumination between one or more pictures and integrate LIC into bi-predictive motion compensation (Chuang [0005] and [0165]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Wang in view of Zhao and Chuang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein prediction samples on boundaries between two PUs in a CU are affected by overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) prior to being used for residual generation (Chuang [0132]).
The same motivation for claim 7 applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Wang in view of Zhao and Chuang teaches the method of claim 1, wherein prediction samples on at least one of a bottom boundary, a top boundary, a right boundary, or a left boundary of the leaf prediction unit are affected by OBMC when the leaf prediction unit is split from the PTU or the PU (Chuang [0132] and fig. 8A).
The same motivation for claim 7 applies to claim 15.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhao as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Urban et al. (U.S. 2020/0053368), hereinafter Urban.
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 9. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein splits are disallowed for the PTU when the PTU is contained in an intra coding (I) slice; or wherein splits are disallowed for the PTU when the PTU contains chroma components.
However, Urban teaches, wherein splits are disallowed for the PTU when the PTU is contained in an intra coding (I) slice; or wherein splits are disallowed for the PTU when the PTU contains chroma components (Urban [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Wang in view of Zhao with the missing limitations as taught by Urban to minimize rate distortion cost as a result of allowing the appropriate splits (Urban [0005]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhao as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Park et al. (U.S. 2021/0235099), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 9. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein splits are disallowed for the PTU when a local dual tree is used on a CU containing the PTU.
However, Park teaches, wherein splits are disallowed for the PTU when a local dual tree is used on a CU containing the PTU (Park [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Wang in view of Zhao with the missing limitations as taught by Park to improve coding efficiency as a result of using small splits (Park [0032]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mishurovskiy et al. (U.S. 2018/0176560), hereinafter Mishurovskiy.
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 1. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein prediction samples on boundaries between two PUs in a CU are filtered prior to being used for residual generation.
However, Mishurovskiy teaches, wherein prediction samples on boundaries between two PUs in a CU are filtered prior to being used for residual generation (Mishurovskiy [0209]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Wang in view of Zhao with the missing limitations as taught by Mishurovskiy to improve coding efficiency as a result of filtering a boundary (Mishurovskiy [0003]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Zhao as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (U.S. 2017/0006309), hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Zhao teaches the method of claim 4. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein syntax elements which are not signaled in the bitstream are inferred to a default value.
However, Liu teaches, wherein syntax elements which are not signaled in the bitstream are inferred to a default value (Liu [0095]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Wang in view of Zhao with the missing limitations as taught by Liu to improve coding efficiency as a result of not having to signal as many syntax elements (Liu [0095]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/25 in regards to the previously presented portions of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pgs. 9-11 of the Applicant’s Response, the Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose the amendments to claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited above, Wang discloses an index indicating a selected prediction mode (Wang [0106]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the current claim language, when selecting a mode, this syntax indicates a single selected mode and when indicating the selected mode, excludes all disallowed modes in that instance. Therefore, Wang discloses the amended limitations of the independent claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482