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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 4, 2025 has been entered.
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) 2, 7, 8, and 13 – 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu1 et al (US 10,887,597) in view of Liu et al (US 2021/0352309, hereafter Liu1).
As per claim 2, Liu discloses a method comprising: obtaining a list of second sets of local illumination parameters for a first coding unit of a current picture, each second set of local illumination parameters defining a local illumination linear model and having been determined for being associated to a second coding unit neighboring the first coding unit (column 26 lines 19 – 48); and determining a first set of local illumination parameters for the first coding unit based on at least one second set of local illumination parameters of the list depending on a characteristic of at least one second coding unit for which associated to the at least one second set of local illumination parameters had been determined, wherein, for each of the at least one second coding units for which the at least one second set of local illumination parameters had been determined, the characteristic is at least one of a width of the second coding unit, a height of the second coding unit, a length of a common border between the second coding unit and the first coding unit, or a motion vector of the second coding unit (column 26 lines 37 – 48).
Regarding claim 7, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 8.
As per claim 13, Liu discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein, if the second coding unit is above the first coding unit, the characteristics is the width of the second coding.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu1 teaches wherein, if the second coding unit is above the first coding unit, the characteristics is the width of the second coding (¶ 159 – 260 and claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Liu in view of Liu1. The advantage is improved video coding.
As per claim 14, Liu discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein, if the second coding unit is above the first coding unit, the characteristics is the height of the second coding.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu1 teaches wherein, if the second coding unit is above the first coding unit, the characteristics is the height of the second coding (¶ 159 – 260 and claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Liu in view of Liu1. The advantage is improved video coding.
As per claim 15, Liu discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein, if the second coding unit is above the first coding unit, the characteristics is the length of the common frontier between the second coding unit and the first coding unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Liu1 teaches wherein, if the second coding unit is above the first coding unit, the characteristics is the length of the common frontier between the second coding unit and the first coding unit (¶ 159 – 260 and claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Liu in view of Liu1. The advantage is improved video coding.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 13 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 14 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 15 are applicable for claim 18.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Liu1 (hereafter Liu) in further view of Zhang et al (US 2019/0215522, hereafter Zhang).
As per claim 6, Liu discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein each set of local illumination parameters of the list is associated to a second coding unit belonging to a same local illumination group as the first coding unit, a local illumination compensation group being an area of the current picture composed of a subset of contiguous samples of the picture, the picture being divided in a plurality of local illumination compensation groups.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches wherein each set of local illumination parameters of the list is associated to a second coding unit belonging to a same local illumination group as the first coding unit, a local illumination compensation group being an area of the current picture composed of a subset of contiguous samples of the picture, the picture being divided in a plurality of local illumination compensation groups (¶ 31; deriving, by the processing circuitry, one or more local illumination compensation parameters for each group of the plurality of groups to generate a plurality of local illumination compensation parameters for the current block).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Liu in view of Zhang. The advantage is improved video coding.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3 – 5 and 9 -11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487