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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 05/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 16-20 have been amended in order to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections. Thus, the 35 USC 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed 08/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 6, 11, and 16 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of CHEN et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2021/0014536 A1] in view of XU et al. (Hereafter, “Xu”) [US 2024/0089485 A1] in further view of FRANCOIS et al. (Hereafter, “Francois”) [US 2022/0086493 A1].
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN et al. (Hereafter, “Chen”) [US 2021/0014536 A1] in view of XU et al. (Hereafter, “Xu”) [US 2024/0089485 A1] in further view of FRANCOIS et al. (Hereafter, “Francois”) [US 2022/0086493 A1].
In regards to claim 1, Chen discloses a method for video decoding ([0038] A method and apparatus of video coding for a video encoding system or video decoding system are disclosed.), comprising: obtaining a plurality of coding blocks within a video frame ([0200] According to this method, input data associated with a current block in a current image from a video sequence is received in step 2010.), wherein the plurality of coding blocks comprise at least one chroma coding block and a plurality of luma coding blocks ([0007] The terms coding tree block (CTB), coding block (CB), prediction block (PB), and transform block (TB) are defined to specify the 2-D sample array of one colour component associated with CTU, CU, PU, and TU, respectively. Thus, a CTU consists of one luma CTB, two chroma CTBs, and associated syntax elements.); and in response to determining that a local dual tree partition is applied ([0012] For I-slice, the QTBT tree structure usually applied with the luma/chroma separate coding. For example, the QTBT tree structure is applied separately to luma and chroma components for I-slice, and applied simultaneously to both luma and chroma (except when certain minimum sizes being reached for chroma) for P- and B-slices. In other words, in an I-slice, the luma CTB has its QTBT-structured block partitioning and the two chroma CTBs have another QTBT-structured block partitioning. In another example, the two chroma CTBs can also have their own QTBT-structured block partitions.), determining whether to apply overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate prediction samples of the video frame ([0042] A method and apparatus of video coding using an Inter mode are disclosed. If a test condition is satisfied, the current block is encoded at an encoder side or decoded at a decoder side using a current Inter mode selected from a modified group of Inter tools, where the modified group of Inter tools is derived from an initial group of Inter tools by removing one or more first Inter tools from the initial group of Inter tools, replacing one or more second Inter tools with one or more complexity-reduced Inter tools, or both. [0043] Said one or more first Inter tools can be selected from a set comprising AMVP (Advanced Motion Vector Prediction), Merge, PMVD (Pattern Matched Motion Vector Derivation), LIC, Affine coding, NPO, OBMC (Overlap Block Motion Compensation) or a combination thereof. [0048] Whether the test condition is satisfied may depend on a temporal layer of current slice, where the current slice includes the current block. The temporal layer is referring to the layer associated with the temporal structure of pictures (e.g. I, B and P pictures).).
Xu discloses a method for video decoding ([0018] Aspects of the disclosure provide methods and apparatuses for video encoding/decoding.), comprising: obtaining a plurality of coding blocks within a video frame, wherein the plurality of coding blocks comprise at least one chroma coding block and a plurality of luma coding blocks ([0080] a CTU includes three coding tree blocks (CTBs), which are one luma CTB and two chroma CTBs); and in response to determining that a local dual tree partition is applied, determining whether to apply overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate prediction samples of the video frame ([0019] In another example, the processing circuitry disallows the palette based coding mode for encoding the block in response to the block being of a luma component and under the local dual tree structure.).
Chen and Xu disclose different coding tools being enabled and disabled based on specific conditions.
However, Francois discloses that video coding tools can be enabled and disabled, wherein the coding tools include at least Palette mode and Overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) [Table 2].
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 teachings of Chen’s system to use a test condition for the determination of the use of a coding tool such as OBMC with the enabling and disabling of palette based coding mode for encoding the block in response to the block being of a specific color component and under the local dual tree structure as taught by Xu and with the known coding tools for enablement and disablement in an encoder/decoder system being at least palette mode and OBMC as taught by Francois in order to improve coding efficiency through the enablement and disablement of coding tools.
In regards to claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen discloses wherein the plurality of coding blocks are under one same coding tree ([0012] For I-slice, the QTBT tree structure usually applied with the luma/chroma separate coding. For example, the QTBT tree structure is applied separately to luma and chroma components for I-slice, and applied simultaneously to both luma and chroma (except when certain minimum sizes being reached for chroma) for P- and B-slices. In other words, in an I-slice, the luma CTB has its QTBT-structured block partitioning and the two chroma CTBs have another QTBT-structured block partitioning. In another example, the two chroma CTBs can also have their own QTBT-structured block partitions.).
Claim 6 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 6.
Claim 7 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 7.
Claim 11 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Claim 12 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Claim 16 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in computer readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 16.
Claim 17 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in computer readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Xu in further view of Francois in even further view of LIU et al. (Hereafter, “Liu”) [WO 2020/016858 A1].
In regards to claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen fails to explicitly disclose wherein determining whether to apply overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate prediction samples of the video frame comprises: in response to determining that the plurality of luma coding blocks are uni-predictive, applying the OBMC to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate the prediction samples of the video frame.
Liu discloses wherein determining whether to apply overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC) to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate prediction samples of the video frame comprises: in response to determining that the plurality of luma coding blocks are uni-predictive, applying the OBMC to the plurality of luma coding blocks to generate the prediction samples of the video frame ([00220] OBMC is only enabled for uni-predicted PU/CU/block/sub- block.).
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 teachings of Chen with the uni-prediction of the blocks as taught by Liu in order to provide higher coding efficiency [See Liu].
Claim 8 lists all the same elements of claim 3, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 8.
Claim 13 lists all the same elements of claim 3, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 13.
Claim 18 lists all the same elements of claim 3, but in computer readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Xu in further view of Francois in even further view of Liu in even further view of “CE10.2.1: OBMC” by Lin et al. (Hereafter, “Lin”).
In regards to claim 4, the limitations of claim 3 have been addressed. Chen fails to explicitly disclose wherein applying the OBMC to the plurality of luma coding blocks comprises: updating boundary prediction samples of the plurality of luma coding blocks.
Lin discloses wherein applying the OBMC to the plurality of luma coding blocks comprises: updating boundary prediction samples of the plurality of luma coding blocks ([Section 2.6] To reduce the line buffer size, if the current block is at a CTU row boundary, then the number of blended lines for OBMC is reduced from 4 to 2.).
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 teachings of Chen with the decreasing of the number of blended lines for OBMC at CTU row boundaries as taught by Lin in order to reduce the complexity of the OBMC method [See Lin].
Claim 9 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Claim 14 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 14.
Claim 19 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in computer readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Xu in further view of Francois in even further view of Bordes et al. (Hereafter, “Bordes”) [US 2022/0021869 A1].
In regards to claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chen discloses further comprising: in response to determining that the local dual tree partition is applied ([0012] For I-slice, the QTBT tree structure usually applied with the luma/chroma separate coding. For example, the QTBT tree structure is applied separately to luma and chroma components for I-slice, and applied simultaneously to both luma and chroma (except when certain minimum sizes being reached for chroma) for P- and B-slices. In other words, in an I-slice, the luma CTB has its QTBT-structured block partitioning and the two chroma CTBs have another QTBT-structured block partitioning. In another example, the two chroma CTBs can also have their own QTBT-structured block partitions.).
Bordes discloses disabling the OBMC for the at least one chroma coding block ([0124] In one embodiment, OBMC is not performed chroma blocks.).
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 teachings of Chen with the known disabling of OBMC for chroma blocks in certain embodiments and certain conditions as taught by Bordes in order to improve picture encoding and decoding.
Claim 10 lists all the same elements of claim 5, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Claim 15 lists all the same elements of claim 5, but in non-transitory computer-readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 15.
Claim 20 lists all the same elements of claim 5, but in computer readable storage medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 20.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482