DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20160134874 A1 (Konieczny)
US 20180218512 A1 (Chan)
US 20190182505 A1 (Chuang)
US 20140307787 A1 (Zheng)
Canny et al., “A Computational Approach to Edge Detection,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 679-698, November 1986
Q. Wang, X. Ji, M. -T. Sun, G. J. Sullivan, J. Li and Q. Dai, "Complexity Reduction and Performance Improvement for Geometry Partitioning in Video Coding," in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 338-352, Feb. 2013
M. -K. Kang, C. Lee, J. Y. Lee and Y. -S. Ho, "Adaptive geometry-based intra prediction for depth video coding," 2010 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo, Singapore, 2010, pp. 1230-1235 (Fig.1. 2 and 8)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicants argued in substance that Chan’s geometric line partitioning is using variance.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and argues that while Chan is using discontinuities to trace the line to partition the block, one could understand variance a common mathematical/statistical to use to find discontinuities/difference/changes.
This is also evident from following: Chan para 43 ““the conventional edge detection methods, such as Canny and Canny, can be used for discontinuities detection of depth maps. See, J. Canny, “A Computational Approach to Edge Detection,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 679-698, (1986); and A. Hast, “Simple Filter Design for First and Second Order Derivatives by A Double Filtering Approach,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 65-71, (2014), both of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety”” and Canny teaches variance is used for edge and line detection [(page 695 right column bottom para; also see the first equation of section “V”)]
Furthermore, Konicezny teaches use of variance to find the difference/discontinuity for partitioning {para 206}
Applicant’s specification in published para 137 is the only place where variance is mentioned. i.e. “As shown, at 902, a depth map corresponding to a current coding block may be examined to determine if an edge (e.g., indicating discontinuities in the texture, depth, and/or motion properties of the coding block) exists in the coding block. Such a determination may be accomplished, for example, by computing a variance”
Therefore, applicant’s specification is also using variance as a common tools of discontinuities/edge, without any specialty.
Considering all the evidence, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 29, 33, 35-36, 38, 40, 42, 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konieczny in view of Chan in view of Canny.
Regarding Claim 29: Konieczny teaches a video decoding device [(para 118)], comprising: a processor [(para 115)] configured to: obtain depth information and texture information associated with a current block [(para 118, 19)] : determine, using variance within the depth information of the current block indicative of a depth discontinuity, a partition of the current block [(para 206; “Possible selection criteria for the selection a partition to be divided may include, for example, ……. the partition with largest depth or disparity difference between points within the partition, the difference can be measured, for example, as the difference between the largest and the smallest value, variance,”; please note disparity is depth {para 3})] : and decode the current block with the texture information based on the partition [(para 118; Para 18 “Determining the arbitrary shape of texture partitions based on depth information” implied line or curve)] .
Konieczy also teaches in Para 44 “determining the portioning mask is performed based on applying an edge detection algorithm to an area of depth information values associated to the texture block”. “edge” is an indicative of depth discontinuity as shown by Chan para 43 “The conventional edge detection methods, such as Canny and Sobel, can be used for discontinuities detection of depth maps”
Therefore, Konieczny mentioned arbitrary partitioning in para 18 (implied partitioning with arbitrary line or curve) does not explicitly show that determining, based on variance within the depth information, a geometric split line or a geometric split curve and that used in determining geometric split line or the geometric split curve, determining a partitioning mode
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Chan teaches , determine a geometric split line or a geometric split curve that partitions the current block into a first region and a second region and based on the determined geometric split line or the geometric split curve, determining a partitioning mode [(Chan para 41, 51; please note discontinuities are related to variance {para 196}; Para 41 “discontinuity map is traced inside each discontinuous block so that the partitions can be formed by the resulting line segments traced inside each block and be approximated by smooth functions.”; )]
Chan also teaches that conventional edge detection methods of Canny is used for discontinuities detection of depth map [(para 43; “the conventional edge detection methods, such as Canny and Canny, can be used for discontinuities detection of depth maps. See, J. Canny, “A Computational Approach to Edge Detection,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 679-698, (1986); and A. Hast, “Simple Filter Design for First and Second Order Derivatives by A Double Filtering Approach,” Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 65-71, (2014), both of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety”)] Canny teaches variance is used for edge and line detection [(page 695 right column bottom para; also see the first equation of section “V”)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Konieczny teaches, with regards to claim 33. The video decoding device of claim 29, wherein the partition of the current block is a geometric partition for geometric partitioning mode (GPM). [(Fig.3, 332)]
Konieczny in view of Chan teaches, with regards to claim 35. The video decoding device of claim 29, wherein the processor being configured to determine the partition of the current block comprises: determine a partition associated with current block [(Chan para 41)]
determine the depth information is associated with an edge [(Konieczny para 45, 83; Chan para 41)] : segment the depth information into a first region and a second region [(Chan para 41, Konieczny para 198; alternatively see para 182, Fig.3, 320; segmented in blocks or 322; segmenting only two region)] : and select a partition based on the segmentation between the first region and second region [(see para 198; alternatively see Fig.3 unit 332)] .
Regarding Claims 36, 38, 40, 42, 45-46: See analysis of claims 29, 33 and 35 and note Konicezny teaches the required decoding method, encoding device and encoding method [(para 66)]
Claims 30-31, 37, 39, 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konieczny in view of Chan in view of Canny in view of Chuang.
Regarding Claims 30, 37, 39, 43: Konieczny in view of Chan in view of Canny does not explicitly show obtain motion information associated with the current block, wherein the partition is determined based further on the motion information
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Chuang teaches obtain motion information associated with the current block, wherein the partition is determined based further on the motion information.[[(Chuang para 40)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Chuang additionally teaches, with respect to claims 31, 44. The video decoding device of claim 30, wherein the motion information comprises a motion map that indicates respective motion values associated with one or more samples of the current block. .[[(Chuang para 40, pixel-based motion of the region/optical )]
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 extension fee 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 Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights