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 Objections
Claims 19-21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the 3 claims appear to be duplicates of claims 8-10 as amended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed towards a “computer program product comprising instructions” for performing the method of claim 1. Software per se is non-statutory subject matter (MPEP §2106 and Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70 (1972)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The amendment to claim 13 adds instructions to perform the method of claim 1 to generate a bitstream, however, the method of claim 1 does not generate a bitstream.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the program" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 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) 1-4, 8-9, 13, 15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al., Intra-Prediction Mode Propagation for Video Coding, IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems, Vol. 9, No. 1, (March 2019), hereinafter Zhang in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2019/0281290), hereinafter Lee. Zhang and Lee were cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 10/2/24.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Zhang discloses an apparatus, comprising:
determining a motion vector pointing to a reference frame for a video block (Zhang p. 110, Abstract, p. 113, section III, first paragraph and fig. 6);
deriving a displaced collocated block from the motion vector (Zhang p. 113, section III, first paragraph, figs. 5-7 and Abstract);
determining intra mode information from the displaced collocated block (Zhang p. 113, section III, first paragraph, figs. 6-7 and Abstract) by performing intra mode derivation based on reconstructed samples associated with the displaced collocated block (Zhang p. 113, figs. 5-7);
adding the intra mode information to a most probable mode list (Zhang p. 118, section V, first paragraph and fig. 16) when the intra mode information is not already included in the most probable mode list (Zhang p. 118, section V, first 2 paragraphs).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose a processor and encoding at least a portion of the video block using the most probable mode list for intra prediction mode signaling.
However, Lee teaches an apparatus comprising:
a processor (Lee [0629] and fig. 16), configured to perform:
determining intra mode information from the displaced collocated block (Lee [0764]) by performing intra mode derivation based on reconstructed samples associated with the displaced collocated block (Lee [0127] and [0335]);
adding the intra mode information to a most probable mode list when the intra mode information is not already included in the most probable mode list (Lee [0764] and [0766]); and
encoding at least a portion of the video block using the most probable mode list (Lee Abstract) for intra prediction mode signaling (Lee [0778]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s method with the missing limitations as taught by Lee to perform encoding/decoding on a high-resolution and high-definition image more accurately (Lee [0005] and [0006]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improve coding efficiency of high-resolution and high-definition images.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Zhang in view of Lee teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a processor (Lee [0629] and fig. 16), configured to perform:
determining a motion vector pointing to a reference frame for a video block (Zhang p. 110, Abstract, p. 113, section III, first paragraph and fig. 6);
deriving a displaced collocated block from the motion vector (Zhang p. 113, section III, first paragraph, figs. 5-7 and Abstract);
determining intra mode information from the displaced collocated block (Zhang p. 113, section III, first paragraph, figs. 6-7 and Abstract and Lee [0764]) by performing intra mode derivation based on reconstructed samples associated with the displaced collocated block (Zhang p. 113, figs. 5-7 and Lee [0127] and [0335]);
adding the intra mode information to a most probable mode list (Zhang p. 118, section V, first paragraph and fig. 16 and Lee [0764] and [0766]) when the intra mode information is not already included in the most probable mode list (Zhang p. 118, section V, first 2 paragraphs and Lee [0764] and [0766]); and
decoding at least a portion of the video block using the most probable mode list (Lee Abstract) for intra prediction mode signaling (Lee [0778]).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 2 applies to claims 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein a conditional determination for adding the intra mode information to the most probable mode list comprises a cost associated with a prediction error or transform difference (Lee [0798] and [0803]).
The same motivation for claim 4 applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein motion information is obtained using an inter coded process, wherein a candidate from an inter coded merge list is used (Zhang p. 112, section C, first paragraph, p. 117, right column, paragraphs 3 and 4 and Lee [0166]).
The same motivation for claim 4 applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang in view of Lee teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method (Lee [0964] and [0967]) of claim 1 (see claim 1) to generate a bitstream (Lee fig. 1 and [0631]-[0633]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Lee teaches a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method (Lee [0964] and [0967]) of Claim 1 (see claim 1 and 101 rejection above).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein a conditional determination for adding the intra mode information to the most probable mode list comprises a cost associated with a prediction error or transform difference (see claim 8 as this claim seems to be a duplicate of claim 8).
Regarding claim 20, Zhang in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein motion information is obtained using an inter coded process, wherein a candidate from an inter coded merge list is used (see claim 9 as this claim seems to be a duplicate of claim 9).
Claim(s) 5-7, 12 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ma et al. (U.S. 2021/0168391), hereinafter Ma.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Lee teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said motion vector determination further comprises a motion model (Zhang p. 111, section 2, first paragraph) and a slice header (Lee [0137]).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein said motion vector determination further comprises deriving the motion vector using a motion model sent in a slice header.
However, Ma teaches wherein said motion vector determination further comprises deriving the motion vector (Ma [0120]) using a motion model sent in a slice header (Ma [0123]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Zhang in view of Lee with the missing limitations as taught by Ma to improve coding efficiency by potentially using fewer bits to signal or not signal motion models (Ma [0123]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency by signaling less bits.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Lee and Ma teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said motion vector determination is a motion model comprising one or more of an affine 4, an affine 6 or homographic model (Zhang p. 111, section 2, first paragraph and p. 121, [16]) used to determine motion of the video block (Ma Abstract).
The same motivation for claim 5 applies to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Lee and Ma teaches the method of claim 6, wherein motion of a current block is determined by a block from the motion model (Zhang p. 119, last paragraph and Ma Abstract) based on a position of the current block within the frame (Zhang figs. 5-7 and Lee [0676]-[0677]).
The same motivation for claims 1 and 5 applies to claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Lee and Ma teaches a device comprising:
an apparatus according to Claim 4 (see claim 4); and
at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including the video block, (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the video block, and (iii) a display configured to display an output representative of the video block (Ma [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Zhang in view of Lee with the missing limitations as taught by Ma to display high quality video to the user (Ma [0003]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of displaying video.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang in view of Lee and Ma teaches the method of claim 3, wherein said motion vector determination further comprises deriving the motion vector using a motion model sent in a slice header (claim 16 recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 16 discloses an inverse of decoding and Lee discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Lee Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang in view of Lee and Ma teaches the method of claim 3, wherein said motion vector determination is a motion model comprising one or more of an affine 4, an affine 6 or homographic model used to determine motion of the video block (claim 17 recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 17 discloses an inverse of decoding and Lee discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Lee Abstract).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang in view of Lee and Ma teaches the method of claim 17, wherein motion of a current block is determined by a block from the motion model based on a position of the current block within the frame (claim 18 recites analogous limitations to claim 7 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 18 discloses an inverse of decoding and Lee discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Lee Abstract).
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lee as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Jhu et al. (U.S. 2024/0283924), hereinafter Jhu.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein a template-based re-ordering is used to select a most probable candidate in the most probable mode list based on a comparison between a template of the current block and reference samples.
However, Jhu teaches, wherein a template-based re-ordering is used to select a most probable candidate in the most probable mode list based on a comparison between a template of the current block and reference samples (Jhu [0257]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Zhang in view of Lee with the missing limitations as taught by Jhu to improve coding efficiency or simplify intra prediction mode signaling (Jhu [0002]-[0003]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 21, Zhang in view of Lee and Jhu teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein a template-based re-ordering is used to select a most probable candidate in the most probable mode list based on a comparison between a template of the current block and reference samples (see claim 10 as this claim seems to be a duplicate of claim 10).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lee as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (U.S. 2020/0213622), hereinafter Xu.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein a collocated reference frame to use, or an index to a reference frame to use, is signaled (Zhang p. 110, col. 2, first full paragraph and Lee [0225]) at a slice level or block level (Xu [0120]).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein a collocated reference frame to use, or an index to a reference frame to use, is signaled at a slice level or block level.
However, Xu teaches wherein a collocated reference frame to use, or an index to a reference frame to use, is signaled at a slice level or block level (Xu [0120]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Zhang in view of Lee with the missing limitations as taught by Xu to improve coding efficiency by signaling which reference frame to use using a frame index signaled at a slice level (Xu [0005] and [0120]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/26 in regards to the previously presented portions of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pgs. 6-7 of the Applicant’s Response, the Applicant states that claim 15 has been amended to recite instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium. This is not the case based on the submitted claim set as claim 15 has only been amended to remove “of any”. As a result, the 101 and 112 issues above still apply.
On p. 9 of the Applicant’s Response, the Applicant states that the duplicate claim issues have been addressed by the amendments. This is not the case based on the submitted claim set as claims 19-21 as amended are still identical to claims 8-10. As a result, the claim objection above still applies.
Applicant's arguments filed in regard to the newly amended claims have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the current grounds of rejection being used in the current rejection, i.e. see additional citations above.
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 MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights