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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-40 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims recite the limitation “wherein the linear model one of a first linear model and a second linear model is derived based on the down-sampled luma component samples”. This limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what “the linear model one of a first linear model and a second linear model” means. It is assumed the limitation is meant to read “wherein the linear model is one of a first linear model and a second linear model that/and is derived based on the down-sampled luma component samples”. Examination of the claims will be conducted as such. If this is not consistent with Applicant’s intention, the examiner requests Applicant provide clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-23, 25-27, 30-32, 34-36, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bandyopadhyayet al. (US 20220094940 A1).
Concerning claim 21, Bandyopadhyay et al. (hereinafter Bandyopadhyay) teaches a video signal decoding apparatus comprising a processor,
wherein the processor is configured to:
derive a linear model based on information related to a first neighboring block of a current block (figs. 11-12; ¶0113-0115; ¶0147 – Cross Component Linear Model (CCLM) or Local Illumination Compensation (LIC)),
predict a chroma component sample of the current block based on the linear model (¶0113).
Concerning claim 22, Bandyopadhyay further teaches the video signal decoding apparatus of claim 21, wherein the information related to the first neighboring block is information about the linear model obtained from a reference picture corresponding to motion information of the first neighboring block (fig. 9: motion vector (MV); ¶0106).
Concerning claim 23, Bandyopadhyay further teaches the video signal decoding apparatus of claim 22, wherein the information about the linear model is information related to a filter coefficient of the linear model (¶0153: linear model coefficients).
Concerning claim 25, Bandyopadhyay further teaches the video signal decoding apparatus of claim 21,
wherein the processor is configured to:
configure a template comprising neighboring blocks of the current block (¶0107; ¶0142),
wherein the neighboring blocks comprising the first neighboring block perform down-sampling of luma component samples of the neighboring blocks based on a color format of a current picture comprising the current block (¶0113),
wherein the linear model one of a first linear model and a second linear model is derived based on the down-sampled luma component samples (figs. 11-12; ¶0113; ¶¶0115-0116),
wherein the chroma component sample is a chroma component sample at a location corresponding to a location of a first sample from among the luma component samples of the current block (¶¶0155-0157),
wherein the linear model is determined by comparing a value of the first sample with a threshold value (¶¶0155-0157).
Concerning claim 26, Bandyopadhyay further teaches the video signal decoding apparatus of claim 25, wherein the threshold value is an average value of reconstructed luma component blocks within the current block (¶0183).
Concerning claim 27, Bandyopadhyay further teaches the video signal decoding apparatus of claim 25, wherein the neighboring blocks included in the template are upper adjacent first blocks of the current block, left adjacent second blocks of the current block, or the first blocks and the second blocks (¶0107; ¶0142).
Concerning claim 30, Bandyopadhyay et al. (hereinafter Bandyopadhyay) teaches a video signal encoding apparatus comprising a processor (figs. 2, 5 and 6; ¶0085),
wherein the processor is configured to obtain a bitstream decoded by a decoding method (figs. 2, 5 and 6; ¶0085), the decoding method comprises:
deriving a linear model based on information related to a first neighboring block of a current block (figs. 11-12; ¶0113-0115; ¶0147 – Cross Component Linear Model (CCLM) or Local Illumination Compensation (LIC)),
predicting a chroma component sample of the current block based on the linear model (¶0113).
Concerning claim 31, Bandyopadhyay further teaches the video signal encoding apparatus of claim 30, wherein the information related to the first neighboring block is information about the linear model obtained from a reference picture corresponding to motion information of the first neighboring block (fig. 9: motion vector (MV); ¶0106).
Concerning claim 32, Bandyopadhyay further teaches the video signal encoding apparatus of claim 31, wherein the information about the linear model is information related to a filter coefficient of the linear model (¶0153: linear model coefficients).
Concerning claim 34, Bandyopadhyay further teaches the video signal encoding apparatus of claim 30,
the decoding method further comprising:
configuring a template comprising neighboring blocks of the current block (¶0107; ¶0142),
wherein the neighboring blocks comprising the first neighboring block (¶0107; ¶0113; ¶0142);
performing down-sampling of luma component samples of the neighboring blocks based on a color format of a current picture comprising the current block (¶0113),
wherein the linear model one of a first linear model and a second linear model is derived based on the down-sampled luma component samples (figs. 11-12; ¶0113; ¶¶0115-0116),
wherein the chroma component sample is a chroma component sample at a location corresponding to a location of a first sample from among the luma component samples of the current block (¶¶0155-0157),
wherein the linear model is determined by comparing a value of the first sample with a threshold value (¶¶0155-0157).
Concerning claim 35, Bandyopadhyay further teaches the video signal decoding apparatus of claim 34, wherein the threshold value is an average value of reconstructed luma component blocks within the current block (¶0183).
Concerning claim 36, Bandyopadhyay further teaches the video signal decoding apparatus of claim 33, wherein the neighboring blocks included in the template are upper adjacent first blocks of the current block, left adjacent second blocks of the current block, or the first blocks and the second blocks (¶0107; ¶0142).
Concerning claim 39, claim 39 is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to the video signal encoding apparatus of claim of 30 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Concerning claim 40, claim 40 is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium to the video signal encoding apparatus of claim of 31 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chono et al. (US 20130101037 A1).
Claim 39’s recitation of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream, wherein the bitstream is decoded by a decoding method…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. 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 generation of an decoded bitstream manipulated by the steps.
To be given patentable weight, computer-readable medium and the bitstream (i.e.,
descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the computer-readable medium to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for the information data (i.e., a decoded bitstream), no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 39 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure bitstream, 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 Chono et al. which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (fig. 10: storage medium 1004; ¶0136). Claim 40 is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 24 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandyopadhyayet al. (US 20220094940 A1) in view of Bang et al. (US 20210289201 A1).
Concerning claim 24, Bandyopadhyayet teaches the video signal decoding apparatus of claim 22. Not explicitly taught is the apparatus, wherein the information about the linear model is stored in a memory of the video signal decoding apparatus.
Bang et al. (hereinafter Bang) teaches a device for effective video decoding via local lighting compensation (LIC), wherein the information about the linear model is stored in a memory of the video signal decoding apparatus (¶¶0382-0386; ¶0402: storing linear model parameters). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bang into the invention taught by Bandyopadhyayet in order to for the stored parameter to be referenced in a block to be decoded later.
Concerning claim 33, Bandyopadhyayet teaches the video signal encoding apparatus of claim 32. Not explicitly taught is the apparatus, wherein the information about the linear model is stored in a memory of the video signal encoding apparatus.
Bang et al. (hereinafter Bang) teaches a device for effective video encoding via local lighting compensation (LIC), wherein the information about the linear model is stored in a memory of the video signal encoding apparatus (¶¶0382-0386; ¶0402: storing linear model parameters). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Bang into the invention taught by Bandyopadhyayet in order for the stored parameter to be referenced in a block to be decoded later.
Claims 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandyopadhyayet al. (US 20220094940 A1) in view of Choi (WO 2019198997 A1).
Concerning claim 28, Bandyopadhyayet teaches the video signal decoding apparatus of claim 27. Not explicitly taught is the apparatus, wherein the neighboring blocks included in the template are determined based on an intra prediction directivity mode.
Choi teaches intra prediction based image coding, wherein the neighboring blocks included in the template are determined based on an intra prediction directivity mode (¶0102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Choi into the invention taught by Bandyopadhyayet in order to adaptively determine reference sample templates for calculating linear model parameters (Choi, ¶0102).
Concerning claim 37, Bandyopadhyayet teaches the video signal encoding apparatus of claim 36. Not explicitly taught is the apparatus, wherein the neighboring blocks included in the template are determined based on an intra prediction directivity mode.
Choi teaches intra prediction based image coding, wherein the neighboring blocks included in the template are determined based on an intra prediction directivity mode (¶0102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Choi into the invention taught by Bandyopadhyayet in order to adaptively determine reference sample templates for calculating linear model parameters (Choi, ¶0102).
Claims 29 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandyopadhyayet al. (US 20220094940 A1) in view of Chuang et al. (US 20180098079 A1).
Concerning claim 29, Bandyopadhyayet teaches the video signal decoding apparatus of claim 27. Not explicitly taught is the apparatus, wherein the neighboring blocks included in the template are determined based on a size of the current block.
Chuang et al. (hereinafter Chuang) teaches a system of adaptively determining template size for illumination compensation, wherein the neighboring blocks included in the template are determined based on a size of the current block (¶0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chuang into the invention taught by Bandyopadhyayet in order to adaptively determining the size of one or more templates to use for a linear model (Chuang, ¶0058).
Concerning claim 38, Bandyopadhyayet teaches the video signal encoding apparatus of claim 36. Not explicitly taught is the apparatus, wherein the neighboring blocks included in the template are determined based on a size of the current block.
Chuang et al. (hereinafter Chuang) teaches a system of adaptively determining template size for illumination compensation, wherein the neighboring blocks included in the template are determined based on a size of the current block (¶0058). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Chuang into the invention taught by Bandyopadhyayet in order to adaptively determining the size of one or more templates to use for a linear model (Chuang, ¶0058).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425