Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: The terms “BAWP” and “LIC” stated as acronyms in the claim should be expanded to clarify their meaning in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: The terms “GPM” and “LIC” stated as acronyms in the claim should be expanded to clarify their meaning in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second partition line" in the last two limitations of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 8, 11-12 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2019/021522) hereinafter “Zhang” in view of Yan et al. (US 2024/0314302) hereinafter “Yan”.
As per claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for decoding a current block in a video bitstream (Fig. 19), performed by a decoder (Fig. 3), the method comprising:
receiving the video bitstream comprising the current block (Fig. 12; paragraph 0062)…the reference block being identified by a motion vector associated with the current block (paragraph 0004);
grouping samples in the current block into at least a first class and a second class (paragraph 0111, video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may classify samples within a current block into several groups; paragraph 0118, Video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may be configured to derive M classes for MMLIC) based on a predefined criteria, the first class and the second class being associated with a first linear model and a second linear model, respectively, wherein the first linear model has at least a scale factor α.sub.1 or an offset β.sub.1, and wherein the second linear model has at least a scale factor α.sub.2 which is different from α.sub.1 or an offset β.sub.2 which is different from β.sub.1 (see equations in paragraph 0118);
determining the first linear model and the second linear model (paragraph 0111, video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may classify samples within a current block into several groups. In this example, video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may pick one linear model from each group);
predicting samples in the first class based on the reference block and the first linear model; predicting samples in the second class based on the reference block and the second linear model (see equations in paragraph 0118); and
reconstructing the current block based on predicted samples in the first class and the second class (Fig. 12, output of reconstruction unit 158; paragraphs 0166 and 0169).
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose receiving the video bitstream comprising…a reference block,
In the same field of endeavor, Yan discloses receiving the video bitstream comprising…a reference block (paragraph 0006),
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 Zhang, with those of Yan, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references are related to encoding/decoding processes using intra-prediction mode and/or linear model prediction, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhang and Yan used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 2, Zhang discloses wherein the predefined criteria comprises at least one of: grouping the samples in the current block into the at least the first class and the second class based on a magnitude or a value of each of the samples; or grouping the samples in the current block into the at least the first class and the second class based on a location of the each of the samples (paragraph 0116, video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may perform a classification of samples (e.g., either neighboring samples of the current block or neighboring samples of the reference block, or samples in the reference block or samples in the current block) based on their intensities of the samples and/or positions of the samples).
As per claim 3, Zhang discloses wherein: the first linear model is represented by an equation below:
p′(x′)=α1*p(x)+β1 where p′(x′) is a sample belonging to the first class in the current block at location x′, p (x) is a sample corresponding to p′(x′) at location x in the reference block; and
the second linear model is represented by an equation below:
p′(y′)=α2*p(y)+β2 where p′(y′) is a sample belonging to the second class in the current block at location y′, p(y) is a sample corresponding to p′(y′) at location y in the reference block (see equations in paragraph 0118).
As per claim 4, Zhang discloses wherein:
grouping the samples in the current block comprises: in response to one of: a) a sample in the current block being greater than an average value or a mean value of samples in the reference block; or b) a reference sample in the reference block corresponding to a sample in the current block being greater than the average value or the mean value of samples in the reference block, grouping the sample to the first class, otherwise grouping the sample to the second class (paragraphs 0118-0123); and
determining the first linear model and the second linear model comprises determining the first linear model and the second linear model based on a classification of the first class and the second class (paragraph 0111).
As per claim 5, Zhang discloses wherein:
grouping the samples in the current block comprises grouping the samples in the current block into the first class and the second class according to a classification rule (paragraph 0111, video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may classify samples within a current block into several groups; paragraph 0118, Video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may be configured to derive M classes for MMLIC; paragraph 0124), the classification rule being based on a value of each of the samples (paragraph 0116, video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may perform a classification of samples (e.g., either neighboring samples of the current block or neighboring samples of the reference block, or samples in the reference block or samples in the current block) based on their intensities of the samples and/or positions of the samples);
grouping samples in a template of the current block and sample in a template of reference block (Figs. 6A and 6B; paragraph 0116, video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may perform a classification of samples (e.g., either neighboring samples of the current block or neighboring samples of the reference block, or samples in the reference block or samples in the current block) based on their intensities of the samples and/or positions of the samples) into a first reference class corresponding to the first class and a second reference class corresponding to the second class according to the classification rule (paragraph 0111, Video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may classify a neighboring luma block of the reference block and a neighboring luma block of the current block into several groups); and
deriving at least one of α.sub.1 and β.sub.1 based on the first reference class, or deriving at least one of α.sub.2 and β.sub.2 based on the second reference class (see scaling factor and offset formulas in paragraph 0099; paragraph 0111, Video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may use each group as a training set to derive a linear model (e.g., particular and/or are derived for a certain group)).
As per claim 6, Zhang discloses wherein: the method further comprising receiving a first syntax element indicating at least one of α.sub.1 or β.sub.1 (paragraphs 0088-0089 and 0137); and determining the first linear model comprises determining the first linear model based on α.sub.1 and β.sub.1 (see equations in paragraph 0118).
As per claim 7, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 6 are applicable for claim 7.
As per claim 9, Zhang discloses wherein: the method further comprises deriving α.sub.2 based on α.sub.1 (equations 8 and 9 in paragraphs 0127-0128 show α2 can be derived based on α1); and determining the second linear model comprises determining the second linear model based on α.sub.2 (paragraph 0118).
As per claim 13, Zhang discloses receiving a fifth syntax element indicating one of following modes: a first mode in which all of α.sub.1, β.sub.1, α.sub.2 and β.sub.2 are not signaled and are to be derived by the decoder; a second mode in which α.sub.1 and #.sub.1 are signaled, and α.sub.2 and β.sub.2 are not signaled and are to be derived by the decoder; a third mode in which α.sub.2 and β.sub.2 are signaled, and α.sub.1 and #.sub.1 are not signaled and are to be derived by the decoder; and a fourth mode in which all of α.sub.1, β.sub.1, α.sub.2 and β.sub.2 are signaled (See paragraphs 0088-0089 and 0137. Only the last limitation is addressed).
As per claim 19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 19; in addition, Zhang teaches a device comprising a memory for storing computer instructions and a processor in communication with the memory, wherein, when the processor executes the computer instructions, the processor is configured to cause the device to perform the claimed method (see Figs. 1 and 12 and paragraph 0040).
As per claim 20, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20; in addition, Zhang teaches a non-transitory storage medium for storing computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions, when executed by a processor, causing the processor to perform the claimed method (paragraph 0040).
8. Claim(s) 10 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2019/021522) in view of Yan et al. (US 2024/0314302) in further view of WANG et al. (US 2025/0193411) hereinafter “WANG”.
As per claim 10, Zhang and Yan disclose the method of claim 2, wherein: determining the first linear model comprises selecting the first linear model from two or more candidate models (see paragraphs 0124-0125 of Zhang);
However, Zhang or Yan do not explicitly disclose receiving a fourth syntax element indicating a scale factor adjustment value to be used for adjusting α.sub.1 in selected first linear model; determining an adjusted α.sub.1 based on α.sub.1 in the selected first linear model and the scale factor adjustment value; and replacing α.sub.1 in the selected first linear model with the adjusted α.sub.1 to obtain an updated first linear model.
In the same field of endeavor, WANG discloses receiving a fourth syntax element indicating a scale factor adjustment value to be used for adjusting α.sub.1 in selected first linear model (paragraph 0369, LIC types may refer to different LIC models with adjustment parameters, wherein the LIC type is signaled by a syntax element as taught in paragraph 0385); determining an adjusted α.sub.1 based on α.sub.1 in the selected first linear model and the scale factor adjustment value (paragraph 0369, an adjustment parameter may be used to adjust α, such as α+u or α×u; paragraph 0430); and replacing α.sub.1 in the selected first linear model with the adjusted α.sub.1 to obtain an updated first linear model (paragraphs 0369, the multiple LIC types may refer to different LIC models with adjustment parameters for one or more existing parameters of LIC (e.g., α and β)).
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 Zhang in view of Yan, with those of WANG, because all references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both Zhang and WANG are related to prediction using multiple-model linear mode, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result, such as improving coding efficiency and coding performance. This rationale applies to all combinations of Zhang, Yan and WANG used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 15, Zhang and WANG disclose wherein the current block is predicted in one of a BAWP mode or a LIC mode (Zhang; paragraphs 0103-0108), and wherein grouping the samples in the current block comprises: grouping the samples in the current block based on a first partition line used for the BAWP mode or the LIC mode, such that samples along one side of the first partition line form the first class and samples along the other side of the first partition line form the second class (WANG; paragraphs 0264-0265 and 0349).
As per claim 16, Zhang discloses wherein determining the first linear model and the second linear model comprises: determining the first linear model based on a first location of a first reference sample in the reference block, the first reference sample corresponding to a first sample in the first class; and determining the second linear model based on a second location of a second reference sample in the reference block, the second reference sample corresponding to a second sample in the first class (paragraphs 0111 and 0116; Video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may classify a neighboring luma block of the reference block and a neighboring luma block of the current block into several groups. In this example, video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may use each group as a training set to derive a linear model (e.g., particular and/or are derived for a certain group)… video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may pick one linear model from each group… video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may perform a classification of samples (e.g., either neighboring samples of the current block or neighboring samples of the reference block, or samples in the reference block or samples in the current block) based on their intensities of the samples and/or positions of the samples).
9. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2019/0215522) in view of Yan et al. (US 2024/0314302) in further view of KIM et al. (US 2025/0150605) hereinafter “KIM”.
As per claim 14, Zhang and Yan disclose the method of claim 2, wherein the current block is predicted in one of a Block Adaptive Weighted Prediction (BAWP) mode or a Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) mode (Zhang; paragraphs 0103-0108), the method further comprising: receiving, from the video bitstream, a high level syntax indicating whether multiple linear models are to be used (i.e., LIC flag; paragraph 0105 of Zhang),
However, Zhang or Yan do not explicitly disclose the high level syntax being signaled in at least one of following levels: a sequence level; a frame level; a slice level; or a super block level.
In the same field of endeavor, KIM discloses the high level syntax being signaled in at least one of following levels: a sequence level; a frame level; a slice level; or a super block level (paragraph 0070 teaches that encoded syntax information can be included in a coding tree unit (CTU), wherein an element of syntax information can be mmlm_flag, as taught in paragraph 0167).
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 Zhang in view of Yan, with those of KIM, because all references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both Zhang and KIM are related to prediction using multiple-model linear mode, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US-20240388691, US-20250220157, US-20250175598, US-20250039356, US-20230057680, US-20220038722, US-20200359051, US-20240146908, US-20180077426)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights