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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. US 2021/0227243 in view of Sim et al. US 2022/0279187.
Claim 1. And under similar/complementary rationale 11. 12. An image decoding method, comprising: determining an interpolation filter of the current block based on the candidate list (0236; 0249); generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the interpolation filter of the current block (Fig. 11B: S1108); and reconstructing the current block based on the prediction sample of the current block (Fig. 11B: S1109).
Wu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Sim teaches determining a candidate list for a current block from a plurality of candidate lists, each of the candidate lists including a plurality of interpolation filter candidates (0174-7)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to us a technique for adaptive interpolation filtering using motion information will be disclosed in order to increase coding efficiency (Sim 0174)
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the candidate list includes at least one of a DCT- based interpolation filter, a Gaussian interpolation filter, or a sharpening interpolation filter, wherein the DCT-based interpolation filter includes at least one of a 8-tap first DCT- based interpolation filter or a 12-tap second DCT-based interpolation filter, and wherein the Gaussian interpolation filter includes at least one of a 8-tap first Gaussian interpolation filter or a 12-tap second Gaussian interpolation filter (0224; 0251; 0272).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Sim in view of Park et al. US 2021/0037239
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the interpolation filter comprises, wherein the values are calculated based on a template region of the current block and a template region of a reference block (0311), and wherein the reference block includes at least one of a reference block in an LO direction or a reference block in an L1 direction (0249).
Wu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Park teaches calculating SAD values corresponding to the plurality of interpolation filter candidates respectively (0119-28)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to let the accuracy of the motion information may be predicted based on the adjacent region similarity between the current block and the reference block (Park 0120)
Claim 3. The method of claim 2, and wherein the index information indicates one of the plurality of interpolation filter candidates belonging to the reordered candidate list (0032; 0039)
Wu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Park teaches wherein a reordered candidate list is generated by reordering the interpolation filter candidates in an ascending order of the SAD values, wherein the interpolation filter of the current block is determined from the reordered candidate list based on index information signaled from a bitstream, and wherein the index information indicates one of the plurality of interpolation filter candidates belonging to the reordered candidate list. (0119-28; Fig. 11; 0167-9)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to let the accuracy of the motion information may be predicted based on the adjacent region similarity between the current block and the reference block (Park 0120)
Claim 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the SAD values are calculated for a reference picture list 0 and a reference picture list 1, respectively (0227; 0249).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Sim in view of Ye et al. US 2009/0257502
Claim 6. The method of claim 1,
Wu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Ye teaches wherein determining the interpolation filter of the current block based on the candidate list is performed based on first flag information indicating whether an adaptive interpolation filter technique is used for the current block (0180-1; claims 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to defines whether the first interpolation filter or the second interpolation filter should be used by a decoder (Ye 0181)
Claim 7. The method of claim 6, information indicating whether the adaptive filter technique is allowed in a video sequence including the current block, a quantization parameter of the current block, a size of the current block, or an inter prediction mode of the current block (0202).
Wu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Ye teaches wherein the first flag information is determined based on at least one of second flag information indicating whether the adaptive filter technique is allowed (0180-1; claims 6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to defines whether the first interpolation filter or the second interpolation filter should be used by a decoder (Ye 0181)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Sim in view of Kim US 2021/0006778
Claim 9. The method of claim 1,
Wu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Kim teaches wherein an interpolation filter for a chroma component of the current block is determined independently from an interpolation filter for a luma component of the current block (0228-0238).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to the reference pixel filter unit reduces the remaining degradation in the encoding/decoding process, filtering may be performed for reference pixels, for the purpose of increasing prediction accuracy (Kim 0230)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu and Sim in view of Liu et al. US 2022/0014734
Claim 10. The method of claim 1,
Wu does not explicitly disclose the following, however Liu teaches wherein the candidate list is reconfigured based on an interpolation filter used in at least one of a picture, a slice or a block decoded before the current block (0205-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the reference(s) as above in order to wherein the HMVP candidate is derived by inheriting one entry from the HMVP table including corresponding interpolation filter information associated with the one entry (Liu 0206)
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 JOSEPH W BECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7301. The examiner can normally be reached flexible usually 10-6.
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 G 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.
/JOSEPH W BECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
