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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 18-37. Claims 21, 28, and 35 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 18-37 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-24, 28-31, and 35-37 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.
Applicant argues that Wenger et al. fails to teach “determine whether to use an inter prediction coding tool based on a position of the motion compensated block relative to the boundary”, however, examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 9, Wenger et al. explicitly teaches “For example, in some video coding technologies and standards, a segment boundary interrupts in-picture prediction mechanisms, such as motion vector prediction, intra prediction, and so forth. To what extent inter-picture prediction mechanisms, such as motion compensation using samples outside of the segment boundary is allowed, depends on the video coding technology or standard. For example, in H.263+, the independent segment decoding mode offers a setting in which no import of sample values through motion compensation across a segment boundary is allowed. Constrained tile sets in H.265 serve a similar purpose.” This clearly lays out that segments are defined by picture boundaries. In Paragraph 10, Wenger et al. explicitly teaches “Picture segmentation techniques can further have in common that only certain types of coding units are allowed in a segment of a given type. For example, in some video coding technologies and standards, an intra slice can contain only CUs coded in intra mode, an inter slice can contain CUs in intra and inter mode, and a bi-predicted slice can contain CUs coded in intra, inter, and bi-predicted mode. As it can be observed, in at least some video coding technologies or standards, the segment types form a hierarchy, such as intra segments are the most restrictive, followed by inter segments, followed by bi-predicted segments.” Here it explicitly teaches determining whether to use inter-prediction is based on CUs being within certain boundaries.
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the remarks above, some of the claims are rejected as before, and some of the claims have a new basis for rejection as applied below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 18-20, 25-27, and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wenger et al. (US 20200077119 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Wenger et al. teaches a device for video decoding (Paragraph 5), comprising: a processor (Paragraphs 16 and 17) configured to:
identify a reference picture of a block, the reference picture comprising a plurality of regions divided by a boundary (Paragraphs 9-15);
identify a motion compensated block associated with the block in the reference picture (Paragraphs 9-15; Paragraph 47; Paragraphs 110-114);
determine whether to use an inter prediction coding tool based on a position of the motion compensated block relative to the boundary (Paragraphs 9-15; Paragraph 84; Paragraphs 110-114); and
decode the block based on the determination of whether to use the inter prediction coding tool (Paragraphs 40-49; Paragraph 61; Paragraph 68; Paragraphs 110-114).
Regarding Claim 19, Wenger et al. teaches the device of claim 18, wherein the plurality of regions comprises a first slice and a second slice, and wherein the processor is further configured to: determine to use the inter prediction coding tool based on the position of the motion compensated block being within the first slice; and determine to not use the inter prediction coding tool based on the position of the motion compensated block being within the second slice (Paragraphs 6-15; Paragraph 33; Paragraphs 92-94; Paragraphs 101-104; Paragraphs 110-114).
Regarding Claim 20, Wenger et al. teaches the device of claim 18, wherein the plurality of regions comprises a first tile and a second tile, and wherein the processor is further configured to: determine to use the inter prediction coding tool based on the position of the motion compensated block being within the first tile; and determine to use the inter prediction coding tool based on the position of the motion compensated block being within the second tile (Paragraphs 6-15; Paragraph 33; Paragraph 79-82; Paragraphs 84-89; Paragraphs 92-94; Paragraphs 101-104; Paragraphs 110-114).
Method claims 25-27 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 18-20 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 32-34 are drawn to the device for video encoding corresponding to the device for video decoding of claims 18-20 above, and has similar limitations merely performed in the inverse. Claims 32-34 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 18-20 above. Wenger et al. further teaches a device for video encoding corresponding to the device for video decoding (Paragraphs 5-8; Paragraph 37).
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 28-31, and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenger et al. (US 20200077119 A1) in view of Elkhazin (US 20140294072 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Wenger et al. teaches the device of claim 18, wherein the plurality of regions comprises a first region and a second region, and the processor is further configured to: determine to use the inter prediction coding tool based on the position of the motion compensated block being at least a number of pixels from the boundary inside the first region; and determine to use the inter prediction coding tool based on the position of the motion compensated block being within the number of pixels from the boundary inside the first region or being within the second region (Paragraphs 6-15; Paragraph 33; Paragraph 76-82; Paragraphs 84-89; Paragraphs 91-99; Paragraphs 101-104; Paragraphs 110-114).
However, Wenger et al. does not explicitly teach the plurality of regions comprises a first region defining a clean area and a second region defining a dirty area, the clean area is an area that is referenced by a future frame, the dirty area is an area that is not referenced by a future frame.
Elkhazin, however, teaches the plurality of regions comprises a first region defining a clean area and a second region defining a dirty area, the clean area is an area that is referenced by a future frame, the dirty area is an area that is not referenced by a future frame, and the processor is further configured to: determine to use the inter prediction coding tool based on the position being inside the first region (Paragraphs 30-31; Paragraph 51, “Responsive to the best inter-mode prediction including prediction based on references in clean regions only (e.g., no references from a dirty region), the best mode prediction may be selected to code the current macroblock at the encoder, at 560. In encoders that include the predictive distortion filter, the predictive distortion filter may be disabled (e.g., via a control signal having a second value) responsive to the best inter-mode prediction including prediction based on references in, clean regions only, at 560.”).
It would have been obvious to have modified the video coding as taught in Wenger et al. to include the specific implementation of clean areas and dirty areas in setting the inter-mode prediction as taught in Elkhazin above, in order to mitigate and reduce negative visual side effects (See Elkhazin Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 22, Wenger et al. and Elkhazin teach the device of claim 21, Wenger et al. further teaches wherein information associated with the determination of whether to use the inter prediction coding tool is based on the motion compensated block relative to the boundary is in a buffer of the reference picture (Paragraphs 6-15; Paragraphs 50-58; Paragraphs 101-104; Paragraphs 110-114).
Regarding Claim 23, Wenger et al. and Elkhazin teach the device of claim 21, Wenger et al. further teaches wherein the determination to use the inter prediction coding tool is based on the position of the motion compensated block being at least four pixels from the boundary inside the first region and the determination to not use the inter prediction coding tool is based on the position of the motion compensated block being within four pixels from the boundary inside the first region or being within the second region (Paragraphs 6-15; Paragraphs 39-43; Paragraph 55; Paragraph 76-82; Paragraphs 84-89; Paragraphs 91-99; Paragraphs 101-104; Paragraphs 110-114; specific number of pixels across boundary to apply the coding tool is a design choice).
Regarding Claim 24, Wenger et al. and Elkhazin teach the device of claim 21, Wenger et al. further teaches wherein the determination to use the inter prediction coding tool is based on the position of the motion compensated block being at least 12 pixels from the boundary inside the first region and the determination to not use the inter prediction coding tool is based on the position of the motion compensated block being within 12 pixels from the boundary inside the first region or being within the second region (Paragraphs 6-15; Paragraphs 39-43; Paragraph 55; Paragraph 76-82; Paragraphs 84-89; Paragraphs 91-99; Paragraphs 101-104; Paragraphs 110-114; specific number of pixels across boundary to apply the coding tool is a design choice).
Method claims 28-31 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 21-24 and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claims 35-37 are drawn to the device for video encoding corresponding to the device for video decoding of claims 21-24 above, and has similar limitations merely performed in the inverse. Claims 35-37 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 21-24 above. Wenger et al. further teaches a device for video encoding corresponding to the device for video decoding (Paragraphs 5-8; Paragraph 37).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights