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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the primary reference, Liu, does not disclose “generating a first set of intra prediction values using a third mapping and the first set of values” (emphasis in original). Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to Liu: FIG. 1 and the following case:
The second block is intra coded and the first block is motion compensated, and
The blocks are neighboring blocks, i.e., first block is on the left or top side of the second block, then
Intra coding for the second block works as follows:
The second block is intra predicted from the set of neighboring value comprised at least partly in the first block,
FIG. 1 shows the residual values of the first block are forward mapped before they are used for prediction, i.e., in the present case, for the prediction of the second block,
This represents a third mapping applied to the first set of values of the first block, to transform them into the domain of the second block, before they are used for intra prediction of the second block.
Applicant argues claim 15 recites “obtaining a first block of a first slice of the first picture; applying a first mapping to the first block to generate a corresponding first mapped block, wherein the first mapped block is not identical to the first block; generating a first mapped residual block corresponding to the first mapped block,” and this feature is not included in claim 1, and therefore the claims are improperly grouped. Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully direct Applicant to the portions below and how they are read to be grouped accordingly.
18/854591 Claim 1
18/854591 Claim 15
obtaining a first block of a first slice of the first picture;
decoding, from a coded video bitstream, a first block of a first coded slice of a first picture;
applying a first mapping to the first block to generate a corresponding first mapped block, wherein the first mapped block is not identical to the first block;
using first information from the coded video bitstream
generating a first mapped residual block corresponding to the first mapped block,
to obtain a first mapped residual block for the first block
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 26 appears to be an exact copy of lines 19, and 24-34 of claim 1, from which claim 26 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
18/854591 Claim 1
18/854591 Claim 26
generating the current prediction block comprises:
generating the current prediction block comprises:
using third information from the coded video bitstream to obtain a second mapped residual block for a second block belonging to the same coded slice as the first block and the current block;
using third information from the coded video bitstream to obtain a second mapped residual block for a second block belonging to the same coded slice as the first block and the current block;
generating a second mapped reconstructed block using the second mapped residual block and a second prediction for the second block;
generating a second mapped reconstructed block using the second mapped residual block and a second prediction for the second block;
using a second inverse mapping and the second mapped reconstructed block to generate a second output reconstructed block, wherein the second inverse mapping is different than the first inverse mapping and the current inverse mapping; and
using a second inverse mapping and the second mapped reconstructed block to generate a second output reconstructed block, wherein the second inverse mapping is different than the first inverse mapping and the current inverse mapping; and
using values from either the second output reconstructed block or the second mapped reconstructed block to generate the current prediction block
using values from either the second output reconstructed block or the second mapped reconstructed block to generate the current prediction block.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-13, 15-20, 22, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (WO 2020/216380 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 15-16, 19-20, 22, 24, and 26, Liu discloses a method performed by an encoder/decoder for encoding/decoding, via CRM, from a coded video bitstream, a first block of a first coded slice of a first picture and a current block of the first coded slice of the first picture, the method comprising: using first information from the coded video bitstream to obtain a first mapped residual block for the first block [Liu: FIG. 1: Yres]; generating a first mapped reconstructed block using the first mapped residual block and a first prediction block for the first block [Liu: FIG. 1: Yr = Yres + Y’pred]; using a first inverse mapping and the first mapped reconstructed block to generate a first output reconstructed block that is not identical to the first mapped reconstructed block [Liu: FIG. 1: involutes[Yr]]; using second information from the coded video bitstream [Liu: FIG. 1: motion compensation as a coding mode signalled in the bitstream] to obtain a current mapped residual block for the current block [Liu: FIG. 1; and ¶ [0060]: Let pred be the prediction signal on a given block obtained by intra or motion compensated prediction]; generating a current prediction block for the current block [Liu: ¶ [0060]: Let pred be the prediction signal on a given block obtained by intra or motion compensated prediction. In order to handle boundary points for the filters, the prediction signal needs to be extended to a prediction signal predext]; generating a current mapped reconstructed block using the current mapped residual block and the current prediction block for the current block [Liu: FIG. 1; the procedure for the motion compensation block]; and using a current inverse mapping and the current mapped reconstructed block to generate a current output reconstructed block that is not identical to the current mapped reconstructed block [Liu: FIG. 1: Inverse Reshape], wherein the current inverse mapping is different than the first inverse mapping [Liu: ¶ [0180]: LMCS parameters… may be adaptively changed from one region or block to another region or block; and p. 31, §4: How to select the LMCS parameters ( e.g., on/off control flags, PWL models) may depend on the coded mode information…
a. In one example, for a video coding unit (e.g., a slice/tile/brick), a first group of blocks coded with specific coding modes may share the same LMCS parameters, while for other blocks, LMCS parameters may be different from that for first group of blocks.
i. In one example, a video coding unit may be a slice/tile group/tile/brick
ii. In one example, the first group of blocks coded with intra mode], and
generating the current prediction block comprises: i) obtaining a first set of values associated with the first block and generating a first set of intra prediction values using a third mapping and the first set of values, wherein the current prediction block comprises the first set of intra prediction values [Liu: FIG. 1: Intra Prediction], or
[the optional language does not require an portion of ii) if i) is disclosed]
ii) performing a process that comprises: using third information from the coded video bitstream to obtain a second mapped residual block for a second block belonging to the same coded slice as the first block and the current block; generating a second mapped reconstructed block using the second mapped residual block and a second prediction for the second block; using a second inverse mapping and the second mapped reconstructed block to generate a second output reconstructed block, wherein the second inverse mapping is different than the first inverse mapping and the current inverse mapping; and using values from either the second output reconstructed block or the second mapped reconstructed block to generate the current prediction block.
Regarding Claim 2, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the first inverse mapping is a first inverse mapping function or a first inverse mapping table, and the current inverse mapping is a current inverse mapping function or a current inverse mapping table [Liu: FIG. 1: invLUT].
Regarding Claim 3, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the first information was generated using, among other things, a first forward mapping, the second information was generated using, among other things, a current forward mapping that is different than the first forward mapping [Liu: FIG. 1: Forward Reshape], the first inverse mapping is the inverse of the first forward mapping, and the current inverse mapping is the inverse of the current forward mapping [Liu: FIG. 1: Inverse Reshape].
Regarding Claim 5, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the first set of values are from i) the first mapped reconstructed block or ii) the first output reconstructed block, and the third mapping maps the first set of values to corresponding values in a current mapped domain [Liu: Abstract: The conversion is performed (1604) based on the determined LMCS parameters, where the video block is constructed based on a first domain and a second domain when LMCS is applied to a video block and chroma residue is scaled in a luma-dependent manner].
Regarding Claim 6, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the first set of values are from the first output reconstructed block [Liu: FIG. 1], and the third mapping is the current forward mapping [Liu: FIG. 1: Forward Reshape].
Regarding Claim 7, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the coded video bitstream is a still picture bitstream that comprises only one picture and wherein the first prediction block and the current prediction block are derived using intra prediction [Liu: ¶ [0054]: Forward reshaping to the prediction signal is disabled for the following cases:
Current block is intra-coded; it is also noted that a single image cannot be inter predicted and may be derived by intra prediction].
Regarding Claim 10, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses obtaining a first parameter set (e.g., first APS) from the bitstream, wherein the first parameter set comprises a first set of mapping parameters from which the first inverse mapping can be derived; and obtaining a second parameter set (e.g., second APS) from the bitstream, wherein the second parameter set comprises a second set of mapping parameters from which the current inverse mapping can be derived [Liu: p. 31: §5: Indications of LMCS APSs the current video unit/block refers to may be signaled, such as indices of LMCS APSs (e.g., slice_lmcs_aps_id), with one of the following methods].
Regarding Claim 11, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses obtaining from the bitstream a slice comprising a slice header and slice data [Liu: p. 9, §7.3.5.1: General Slice Header Syntax] comprising a first set of one or more syntax elements associated with the first block and a second set of one or more syntax elements associated with the current block [Liu: ¶ [0110]: slice_lmcs_aps_id[ i] specifies the adaptation_parameter_set_id of the i-th LMCS APS that the slice refers to]; decoding from the first set of syntax elements a first selector value for the first block; and decoding from the second set of syntax elements a current selector value for the current block, wherein the first selector value indicates the first parameter set, and the current selector value indicates the second parameter set [Liu: ¶ [0110]].
Regarding Claim 12, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses deriving the first inverse mapping from the first set of parameters; and deriving the current inverse mapping from the second set of parameters [Liu: ¶ [0040]: invLUT].
Regarding Claim 13, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the first inverse mapping is: i) a piecewise linear model, ii) a function selected from a set of predefined mapping functions, or iii) a function with one or more signaled function adjustment parameters [Liu: ¶ [0119]: 3. The method of any one or more of clauses 1-2, wherein the reshaping model information includes one or more of the following: on/off control flags, a number of adaptive parameters sets (APSs) related to the in-loop reshaping step, indices of adaptive parameters sets (APSs), piece wise linear (PWL) models associated with an adaptive loop filter, and/or adaptive parameters sets (APSs) associated with an adaptive loop filter].
Regarding Claim 17, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 16, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the first set of values are derived from the first mapped residual block [Liu: FIG. 1].
Regarding Claim 18, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the third mapping is one of the second mapping, a function of at least the second mapping, or a function of both the first mapping and the second mapping [Liu: FIG. 1].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights