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 .
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 7, 9 – 13, 15, and 18 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deng et al (US 2023/0396777, hereafter Deng).
As per claim 1, Deng discloses a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of frames; identifying a set of reference frames for a current frame of the video bitstream, the current frame having a plurality of blocks, including a current block; selecting a reference frame from the set of reference frames for use with the current block (¶ 69);
determining a frame padding area size for the reference frame; and reconstructing the current block using the reference frame with a frame padding area having the determined frame padding area size (¶ 74).
As per claim 2, Deng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the frame padding area size is indicated by an indicator in the video bitstream (¶ 96).
As per claim 3, Deng discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the frame padding area size is explicitly signaled in the video bitstream (¶ 96).
As per claim 4, Deng discloses the method of claim 2, wherein a plurality of frame padding area sizes are predefined, and the indicator comprises an index to the plurality of frame padding area sizes (¶ 96).
As per claim 5, Deng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the frame padding area size for the reference frame comprises determining a horizontal padding size and a vertical padding size (¶ 74).
As per claim 6, Deng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the frame padding area size for the reference frame comprises determining separate left padding, right padding, top padding, and bottom padding values (¶ 74).
As per claim 7, Deng discloses the method of claim 6, wherein a first subset of the left padding, right padding, top padding, and bottom padding values are signaled in the video bitstream, and wherein a second subset of the left padding, right padding, top padding, and bottom padding values are derived (¶ 74 and 96).
As per claim 9, Deng discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of predefined frame padding area sizes consists of sizes corresponding to powers of 2 (¶ 70).
As per claim 10, Deng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the frame padding area size is defined by a non-negative integer value that is less than or equal to a maximum value (¶ 104 and 105).
As per claim 11, Deng discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the maximum value is based on a block size of the current block (¶ 104 and 105).
As per claim 12, Deng discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the maximum value corresponds to a superblock size multiplied by a scalar value (¶ 104 and 105).
As per claim 13, Deng discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the frame padding area size for the reference frame comprises deriving the frame padding area size based on coded information (¶ 96).
As per claim 15, Deng discloses the method of claim 13, wherein determining the frame padding area size comprises determining a horizontal padding value and a vertical padding value for the frame padding area (¶ 74).
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Li et al (US 2022/0394309, hereafter Li).
As per claim 8, Deng discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Deng does not explicitly teach wherein the frame padding area size for the reference frame is selected from a plurality of predefined frame padding area sizes.
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein the frame padding area size for the reference frame is selected from a plurality of predefined frame padding area sizes (¶ 205 - 215).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Deng in view of Li. The advantage is improving the accuracy of video coding.
As per claim 17, Deng discloses the method of claim 1.
However, Deng does not explicitly teach wherein a number of samples in the frame padding area is constant for different frame padding area sizes.
In the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein a number of samples in the frame padding area is constant for different frame padding area sizes (¶ 205 – 230).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Deng in view of Li. The advantage is improving the accuracy of video coding.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Deng in view of Li. The advantage is improving the accuracy of video coding.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of LeLeannec et al (US 2025/0220221, hereafter LeLeannec).
As per claim 14, Deng discloses the method of claim 13.
However, Deng does not explicitly teach wherein the coded information comprises a global motion vector for the current frame.
In the same field of endeavor, LeLeannec discloses wherein the coded information comprises a global motion vector for the current frame (¶ 80).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Deng in view of LeLeannec. The advantage is improving the accuracy of video coding.
As per claim 16, Deng discloses the method of claim 13.
However, Deng does not explicitly teach wherein the coded information comprises a distribution of block-level motion vectors for the current frame.
In the same field of endeavor, LeLeannec teaches wherein the coded information comprises a distribution of block-level motion vectors for the current frame.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Deng in view of LeLeannec. The advantage is improving the accuracy of video coding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights