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 .
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claim(s) 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIDANI (US 2024/0129490).
As per claim 13, KIDANI teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a video encoding method (paragraph 0032, The coded data may be stored in a storage medium and then provided from the image coding device 100 to the image decoding device 200), the video encoding method comprising (the method steps do not carry patentable weight as the claim is a product-by-process claim in which only the bitstream (product), generated by the method steps (process), is given weight. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 13 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by KIDANI which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (¶0032).
As per claims 14-17 and 20, the method steps in these claims do not carry patentable weight, see the explanation provided for claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-12 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIDANI (US 2024/0129490) in view of KIDANI et al. (US 2024/0205391) hereinafter “KIDANI_2”.
As per claim 1, KIDANI discloses a method performed by a video decoding apparatus for intra-predicting a current block (FIG. 7; paragraph 0115), the method comprising:
decoding, from a bitstream, a geometric intra-prediction flag (i.e., sps_gpm_intra_enabled_flag) that indicates whether to use a geometric intra-prediction mode for the current block (see FIG. 8, step S200-HLS-02; paragraph 0123); and
checking for the geometric intra-prediction flag (FIG. 8, step S200-HLS-04; paragraph 0127),
decoding from the bitstream a geometric partitioning information index (i.e., gpm_partition_index; see FIG. 10, step S200-09; paragraph 0182), a first intra-prediction mode index (i.e., intra_gpm_idx0; see FIG. 15, step SR0-02A; paragraph 0234), and a second intra-prediction mode index (i.e., intra_gpm_idx1; see FIG. 16, step SR1-10; paragraph 0249) based on a value of the geometric intra-prediction flag (FIG. 10 shows that decode gpm_partition_idx is based on GpmFlag value that is also based on sps_gpm_intra_enabled_flag value as shown in FIG. 9. FIGs. 15 and 16 show that decode intra_gpm_idx0 and intra_gpm_idx1 are based on gpm_r0_intra_flag value that is also based on sps_gpm_intra_enabled_flag value as shown in FIG. 11);
selecting a first intra-prediction mode from a list of prediction modes by using the first intra-prediction mode index (paragraphs 0236-0239);
selecting a second intra-prediction mode from the list of prediction modes by using the second intra-prediction mode index (paragraphs 0253-0256);
However, KIDANI does not explicitly disclose generating, based on the first intra-prediction mode, a first intra predictor of the current block by using pixels spatially adjacent to the current block;
generating, based on the second intra-prediction mode, a second intra predictor of the current block by using pixels spatially adjacent to the current block;
obtaining, by using the geometric partitioning information index, weights that comprise first weights used for the first intra predictor and second weights used for the second intra predictor; and
weight summing the first intra predictor and the second intra predictor by using the weights to generate a final intra predictor of the current block.
In the same field of endeavor, KIDANI_2 discloses generating, based on the first intra-prediction mode, a first intra predictor of the current block by using pixels spatially adjacent to the current block (FIG. 6; paragraphs 0120 and 0168);
generating, based on the second intra-prediction mode, a second intra predictor of the current block by using pixels spatially adjacent to the current block (FIG. 6; paragraphs 0120 and 0168);
obtaining, by using the geometric partitioning information index, weights that comprise first weights used for the first intra predictor and second weights used for the second intra predictor (FIGs. 6 and 13; paragraph 0244); and
weight summing the first intra predictor and the second intra predictor by using the weights to generate a final intra predictor of the current block (paragraph 0245).
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 KIDANI, with those of KIDANI_2, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references teach application of intra prediction to geometric partitioning mode, 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 combination of KIDANI and KIDANI_2 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 2, KIDANI_2 discloses generating the list comprising prediction modes for intra prediction of the current block (FIG. 7; paragraphs 0116-0118).
As per claim 3, KIDANI_2 discloses reordering the list of prediction modes by excluding the first intra-prediction mode from the list of prediction modes (paragraphs 0176 and 0194).
As per claim 4, KIDANI_2 discloses wherein obtaining the weights comprises: obtaining, by using the geometric partitioning information index, an index of angle and an index of distance relative to a straight line bisecting the current block, the index of angle representing an angle of a line segment orthogonal to the straight line, and the index of distance representing a distance from the straight line (paragraph 0247).
As per claim 5, KIDANI_2 discloses wherein obtaining the weights comprises: calculating actual distances between pixels in the current block and the straight line by using a size of the current block, the index of angle, and the index of distance (paragraph 0247).
As per claim 7, KIDANI_2 discloses wherein obtaining the weights comprises: determining, based on reference samples used for the intra prediction, a predictor that uses a greater weight in each of regions of the current block once bisected along the straight line (see FIG. 13).
As per claims 8-12, the claims are directed to a method performed by a video encoding apparatus corresponding to the method performed by a video decoding apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 1-3 are applicable for claims 8-12 since KIDANI teaches an encoding method (see paragraphs 0102 and 0125).
As per claim 18, KIDANI discloses wherein decoding from the bitstream the geometric partitioning information index, the first intra-prediction mode index, and the second intra- prediction mode index is performed in response to the geometric intra-prediction flag being true (FIG. 10 shows that decode gpm_partition_idx is based on GpmFlag being 1 in response to the sps_gpm_intra_enabled_flag being 1 as shown in FIG. 9. FIGs. 15 and 16 show that decode intra_gpm_idx0 and intra_gpm_idx1 are based on gpm_r0_intra_flag being 1 in response to the sps_gpm_intra_enabled_flag being 1 as shown in FIG. 11).
As per claim 19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 18 are applicable for claim 19.
9. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIDANI (US 2024/0129490) in view of KIDANI et al. (US 2024/0205391) in further view of JANG et al. (US 2025/0008101) hereinafter “JANG”.
As per claim 6, KIDANI and KIDANI_2 disclose the method of claim 5, wherein obtaining the weights comprises: calculating, based on the actual distances, the first weights and the second weights for the pixels in the current block (paragraph 0247 of KIDANI_2),
However, KIDANI or KIDANI_2 do not explicitly disclose wherein, for each of the pixels in the current block, a sum of a weight of the first intra predictor and a weight of the second intra predictor is one.
In the same field of endeavor, JANG discloses wherein, for each of the pixels in the current block, a sum of a weight of the first intra predictor and a weight of the second intra predictor is one (see equation 5 in paragraph 0254).
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 KIDANI and KIDANI_2, with those of JANG, because all references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed all references teach application of intra prediction to geometric partitioning mode, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 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