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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. 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 § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 16-17 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEREGEN et al. (US 2020/0186830) hereinafter “SEREGEN” in view of URBAN et al. (US 2022/0159277) hereinafter “URBAN”.
As per claim 1, SEREGIN discloses a method of video decoding, comprising:
receiving a bitstream (paragraph 0082, the decoding device 112 receives the encoded video bitstream data) that includes first coded information of a current block in a current picture, the first coded information indicating an inter prediction of the current block based on a reference block in a reference picture for the current block (paragraph 0066, For inter-prediction, a set of motion parameters (e.g., one or more motion vectors, reference indices, or the like) is signaled in the bitstream for each PU and is used for inter-prediction of the luma PB and the one or more chroma PBs; paragraph 0069, a prediction mode may be signaled inside the bitstream using syntax data. A prediction mode may include intra-prediction (or intra-picture prediction) or inter-prediction (or inter-picture prediction); paragraph 0146, …an encoded video bitstream including video data...The video data can include a plurality of pictures, and the pictures can be divided into a plurality of blocks, as previously described. The video data can also include motion information for the pictures and/or blocks, which can be used to perform motion compensation), and local illumination compensation (LIC) to the inter prediction of the current block (paragraph 0129, one or more flags can be signaled between an encoder and a decoder at a block level to indicate whether particular tools have been applied (e.g., LIC, merge mode, among others) in the prediction of the block; paragraph 0162, the illumination compensation flag can be included in the encoded bitstream), the LIC generating a prediction sample of the current block based on a formula with one or more reconstructed samples in the reference block being input to the formula, the formula including one or more LIC parameters (see paragraphs 0111-0112, equation (I));
determining first LIC information for the potential application of the LIC to the current block (paragraph 0152, determining whether to apply illumination compensation for the current block…In some examples, the illumination compensation flag can indicate whether illumination compensation is to be applied) based on second coded information of a second block that is reconstructed before the current block (paragraph 0156, illumination compensation can be performed for the current block based on the value of the inherited illumination compensation flag), the first LIC information including at least one of a first control flag indicating that the LIC is applied to the current block (paragraph 0152, determining whether to apply illumination compensation for the current block…In some examples, the illumination compensation flag can indicate whether illumination compensation is to be applied…the illumination compensation flag being set to true can indicate that that illumination compensation is to be applied for the current block), a first template type for deriving the one or more LIC parameters, a first formula type of the formula, and/or a transform type for residual data of the LIC (only the first part of this limitation is examined), the second block being different from the reference block (i.e., a neighboring block or another block in a candidate list, see paragraph 0150);
applying, according to the first LIC information, the LIC to the current block (paragraph 0156, illumination compensation can be performed for the current block based on the value of the inherited illumination compensation flag) to generate at least a reconstructed sample of the current block ();
storing the first LIC information that has been applied to the current block as stored LIC information, the stored LIC information…being available for at least one third block to inherit (paragraph 0145, an illumination compensation flag can be stored along with the motion vector predictor for a current block, where the illumination compensation flag and the motion information can be propagated to other blocks which can be predicted with this information (e.g., in the merge mode); paragraph 0150, in a merge mode, the motion information for the current block can be inherited from the motion information of a neighboring block or another block in a candidate list. In some examples, the illumination compensation flag can be stored along with motion information for the current block in a motion vector candidate list which includes the motion information for the current block; paragraph 00156, the illumination compensation flag can be stored along with motion information for block. In some examples, the stored illumination compensation flag can be inherited along with the associated motion information. For example, the illumination compensation flag and motion information of a neighboring block can be inherited and used for motion prediction of a current block (e.g., in the merge mode)); and
reconstructing the at least one third block with the LIC based on the stored LIC information (paragraph 0145, an illumination compensation flag can be stored along with the motion vector predictor for a current block, where the illumination compensation flag and the motion information can be propagated to other blocks which can be predicted with this information (e.g., in the merge mode); paragraph 0156, the illumination compensation flag can be stored along with motion information for block. In some examples, the stored illumination compensation flag can be inherited along with the associated motion information. For example, the illumination compensation flag and motion information of a neighboring block can be inherited and used for motion prediction of a current block (e.g., in the merge mode); paragraph 0293, applying…illumination compensation for the current block; and reconstructing a sample of the current block based on…illumination compensation applied to the current block).
However, SEREGEN does not explicitly teach the stored LIC information including the derived one or more LIC parameters.
In the same field of endeavor, URBAN discloses the stored LIC information including the derived one or more LIC parameters (paragraph 0091, partial LIC parameters are derived and stored (a.sub.i and b.sub.i). For example, parameters for first subblock—top-left (1)—are stored as (a.sub.1 and b.sub.1)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of SEREGEN by storing derived LIC parameters, as taught by URBAN, so they can be inherited and used by a current block; thus, saving bits and increasing storage efficiency.
As per claim 16, SEREGEN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the stored LIC information (see paragraphs 0145, 0150 and 0156) is stored in a unit of m x n samples, and m and n are positive integer numbers (paragraphs 0081 and 0199 teach that the storage device may include hard drive. paragraphs 0230 and 0234 also teach that the storage device may include magnetic disk or tape. It is known in the art that the type of media storage that stores data in a unit of m x n samples is typically magnetic storage devices, such as hard drives and magnetic tapes).
As per claim 17, the claim is directed to a method of video encoding corresponding to the method of video decoding of claim 1; therefore, since SEREGEN discloses encoding and decoding methods (see FIGs. 09-10), arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 17.
As per claim 22, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 17 are applicable for claim 22; in addition, SEREGEN discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform the method of encoding a bitstream (paragraphs 0204 and 0234); and transmitting the bitstream (paragraph 0204).
8. Claim(s) 2-6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEREGEN et al. (US 2020/0186830) in view of URBAN et al. (US 2022/0159277) in further view of Bordes et al. (US 2022/0353517) hereinafter “Bordes”.
As per claim 2, SEREGIN and URBAN disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the determining the first LIC information comprises: when the second coded information of the second block indicates that a second control flag of the second block is true indicating the LIC being applied to the second block (SEREGIN; paragraph 0156, illumination compensation can be performed for the current block based on the value of the inherited illumination compensation flag. For example, the inherited motion vectors from the neighboring block can be used as the motion vectors for the current block, and illumination compensation can be performed if the inherited illumination compensation flag from the neighboring block is true. In such examples, the LIC parameters can also be inherited from the neighboring block and used as the LIC parameters for the current block if the illumination compensation flag is true)…the first control flag indicating that the LIC is applied to the current block (SEREGIN; paragraph 0152, the illumination compensation flag being set to true can indicate that that illumination compensation is to be applied for the current block).
However, SEREGIN or URBAN do not explicitly disclose determining the first control flag of the current block based on a comparison of a value of the one or more LIC parameters with a threshold value.
In the same field of endeavor, Bordes discloses determining the first control flag of the current block based on a comparison of a value of the one or more LIC parameters with a threshold value (paragraphs 0058-0062).
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 SEREGIN and URBAN, with those of Bordes, because all references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed all references are related to LIC parameters derivation, 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 combinations of SEREGIN, URBAN and Bordes used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 3, the combination of SEREGIN and Bordes discloses wherein the determining the first control flag further comprises:
deriving the one or more LIC parameters based on a current template of the current block and a reference template of the reference picture (see SEREGIN, FIGs. 4A-4B and paragraph 0037, FIGs. 5A-5B and paragraph 0118);
determining that the first control flag is true when derived parameter values of the one or more LIC parameters are within respective ranges of the one or more LIC parameters (see Bordes, paragraph 0055, if the computed LIC parameters for component C are defaults, then LIC_flag_out[C]=false, else LIC_flag_out[C]=true, wherein LIC_flag_out[C]=false if the values of the LIC parameters are close to default. For example, in case of LIC model (eq.1), “close to default”…can correspond to: abs(a−1)<th_a and abs(b)<th_b, where (th_a;th_b) are pre-determined values (e.g. 0.1 and 10<<(bitdepth_8)), as taught in paragraph 0058).
As per claim 4, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 3 are applicable for claim 4.
As per claim 5, Bordes discloses wherein the threshold value is a constant value or the threshold value is decoded from at least one of a sequence header, a slice header, a. picture header, and a frame header in the bitstream (paragraph 0058).
As per claim 6, SEREGIN discloses wherein the threshold value is determined based on at least one of a quantization parameter of the current block, a block size of the current block, a shape of the current block, a temporal distance between the current block and/or the reference block (paragraph 0189).
As per claim 18, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 2 are applicable for claim 18.
9. Claim(s) 7-8 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEREGEN et al. (US 2020/0186830) in view of URBAN et al. (US 2022/0159277) in further view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2022/0094940) hereinafter “Bandyopadhyay”.
As per claim 7, SEREGEN and URBAN disclose the method of claim 1; however, SEREGEN or URBAN do not explicitly disclose wherein the determining the first LIC information comprises: determining the first template type according to a default template type associated with a shape of the current block.
In the same field of endeavor, Bandyopadhyay discloses wherein the determining the first LIC information comprises: determining the first template type according to a default template type associated with a shape of the current block (paragraph 0113, For a coding block having a square shape, the Eq. (6) are applied directly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding system of SEREGEN in view of URBAN with the support for default templates of Bandyopadhyay, because such systems and methods allow for establishing a default template for coding a video bitstream (Bandyopadhyay, paragraph 0113). This rationale applies to all the combination of SEREGEN, URBAN and Bandyopadhyay used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 8, Bandyopadhyay discloses wherein the default template type is an above and left template type when the shape of the current block is a square and an above template and a left template are available (paragraph 0113, C(n) represents top and left neighboring reconstructed chroma samples).
As per claim 11, SEREGEN and URBAN disclose the method of claim 1; however, SEREGEN or URBAN do not explicitly disclose wherein the determining the first LIC information comprises: determining the first template type according to a second template type for the second block when a second control flag for the second block is true.
In the same field of endeavor, Bandyopadhyay discloses wherein the determining the first LIC information comprises: determining the first template type according to a second template type for the second block when a second control flag for the second block is true (paragraph 0103, A first flag for (e.g., each) inter coded CU may be signaled to indicate whether the translational motion model or the affine motion model is applied for inter prediction. If the affine motion model is applied, a second flag may be sent to indicate whether the model is four-parameter or six-parameter).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding system of SEREGEN in view of URBAN with the support for establishing template types based on other template types and flags of Bandyopadhyay, because such systems and methods allow for signaling the use of a template type based on a second flag (Bandyopadhyay, paragraph 0103). This rationale applies to all the combination of SEREGEN, URBAN and Bandyopadhyay used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 12, Bandyopadhyay discloses wherein the determining the first LIC information comprises: determining that the first template type of the current block is of a same type as the second template type of the second block when the first control flag of the current block is determined to be a same flag as the second control flag of the second block (paragraph 0108, When each CU is coded in a 2N×2N merge mode, a LIC flag is copied from neighboring blocks selected as the merge candidate in a way similar to motion information copy in merge mode. Otherwise, the LIC flag is signaled for the CU to indicate whether LIC applies or not).
As per claim 13, SEREGEN and URBAN disclose the method of claim 1; however, SEREGEN or URBAN do not explicitly disclose wherein the determining the first LIC information comprises: determining that the first control flag of the current block is of a same flag as a second control flag of the second block regardless whether the second block uses the reference picture for inter prediction.
In the same field of endeavor, Bandyopadhyay discloses wherein the determining the first LIC information comprises: determining that the first control flag of the current block is of a same flag as a second control flag of the second block regardless whether the second block uses the reference picture for inter prediction (paragraph 0108, When each CU is coded in a 2N×2N merge mode, a LIC flag is copied from neighboring blocks selected as the merge candidate in a way similar to motion information copy in merge mode. Otherwise, the LIC flag is signaled for the CU to indicate whether LIC applies or not).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding system of SEREGEN in view of URBAN with the support for identical control flags of Bandyopadhyay, because such systems and methods allow for determining when the same flag is signaled repeatedly (Bandyopadhyay, paragraph 0108).
10. Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEREGEN et al. (US 2020/0186830) in view of URBAN et al. (US 2022/0159277) in further view of Bandyopadhyay et al. (US 2022/0094940) in further view of WANG et al. (US 2022/0224915) cited in IDS, hereinafter “WANG”.
As per claim 9, SEREGEN, URBAN, and Bandyopadhyay disclose the method of claim 7; however, SEREGEN, URBAN, or Bandyopadhyay do not explicitly disclose wherein the default template type is a left template type when the shape of the current block is rectangular, a ratio of a height to a width of the current block is larger than a predefined threshold value, and a left template of the current block is available.
In the same field of endeavor, WANG discloses wherein the default template type is a left template type when the shape of the current block is rectangular, a ratio of a height to a width of the current block is larger than a predefined threshold value, and a left template of the current block is available (paragraph 0009, the at least one template set is selected from the plurality of sub-templates based on a coding information for the current block, wherein the coding information includes a block dimension or block shape. The at least one template set may be selected from the plurality of sub-templates based on a relationship between the dimension and a pre-defined threshold. BW may represent a block width of the current video block and BH may represent a block height of the current video block. In some implementations, a left sub-template is not selected in a case that the BW divided by the BH is greater than or equal to a first threshold. In some implementations, an above sub-template is not selected in a case that the BH divided by the BW is greater than or equal to a second threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the video coding systems of SEREGEN in view of URBAN and Bandyopadhyay with the support for default template types for rectangular blocks of WANG, because such systems and methods allow for defaulting to a template type where a current block fits certain criteria (WANG, paragraph 0009).
As per claim 10, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 9 are applicable for claim 10.
Conclusion
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