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 .
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 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 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 1-4 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2022/0239902) in view of Lee (US 2020/0154128).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an image decoding device (see 200 in fig. 2) comprising a circuit, wherein the circuit is configured to apply a geometric partitioning mode (e.g. see 602 in fig. 6) including inter prediction or intra prediction to a block to be decoded (see 212 in fig. 2), wherein the geometric partitioning mode enables the block to be decoded to be partitioned diagonally (e.g. see 602 in fig. 6).
Although Wang discloses the circuit is further configured to apply overlapped block prediction (e.g. see ¶ [0085]) to a sub-block (see PU1 and PU2 in fig. 6) facing a block boundary of the block to be decoded after the geometric partitioning mode including inter prediction or intra prediction is applied to the block to be decoded (see 212 in fig. 2), it is noted that Wang does not clearly discloses wherein the block prediction includes motion compensation.
However, Lee discloses an image decoding system wherein the block prediction includes motion compensation (see “OBMC” in fig. 13A).
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Lee teachings of OBMC into Wang block prediction for the benefit of efficiently performing inter prediction for an encoding/decoding target block in encoding/decoding a video signal.
Regarding claim 2, Wang further discloses wherein the sub-block is a sub-block of a block generated after weighted averaging in the geometric partitioning mode (e.g. see predefined “weighting factors” for triangular PU in ¶ [0085]).
Regarding claim 3, the references further discloses wherein the circuit is configured to control whether or not to apply the overlapped block motion compensation to the sub-block based on a prediction type of the sub-block (e.g. see Lee ¶ [0170]).
Regarding claim 4, the references further discloses wherein the circuit is further configured to: determine to apply the overlapped block motion compensation to the sub-block whose prediction type is the inter prediction (e.g. see Lee ¶ [0170]); determine not to apply the overlapped block motion compensation to the sub-block whose prediction type is the intra prediction (e.g. see Lee ¶ [0170]); and generate a final predicted sample of the block to be decoded based on the determination result (see Lee S1060 in fig. 11).
Regarding claim 10, the claim(s) recite a method with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 11, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 12, Wang further discloses wherein the sub-block is a sub-block of a block generated before weighted averaging in the geometric partitioning mode (e.g. see 602 in fig. 6 for ¶ [0085]).
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Wang further discloses wherein the circuit is configured to apply the overlapped block motion compensation to a plurality of sub-blocks facing a plurality of block boundaries of the block to be decoded after the geometric partitioning mode including inter prediction or intra prediction is applied to the block to be decoded (e.g. see 602 in fig. 6 for ¶ [0085]; see 212 in fig. 2).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Wang further discloses wherein the circuit is configured to apply the overlapped block motion compensation to a plurality of sub- blocks facing two adjacent block boundaries of the block to be decoded after the geometric partitioning mode including inter prediction or intra prediction is applied to the block to be decoded (e.g. see 602 in fig. 6 for ¶ [0085]; see 212 in fig. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lim et al. (US 2022/0321890), discloses video coding with weighted average in geometric partition.
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 RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485