DETAILED ACTION
The communication is in response to the application and preliminary amendment, both received 2024 December 09, wherein:
claims 1 and 16 are as originally filed;
claims 3-5, 10-15, and 18-22 are amended;
claims 2, 6-9, 17, and 23-24 are cancelled; and
claims 25-28 are added.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-5, 10-16, 18-22, and 25-28 are pending and are examined as follows.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2024 December 09. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
Field of the Invention.
Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
¶ [74] makes reference to “template of decoded reference samples (301)”. Reference number (301) does not appear in FIG. 9A and FIG. 9B. Examiner suggests that reference instead be made to (901).
In ¶ [101], “CIIP” is misspelled as “CCIP”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4, 13, and 19 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.
REGARDING CLAIMS 4 and 19, claims 4 and 19 recite the limitation “said template area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the respective claims.
REGARDING CLAIM 13, claim 13 recites the limitation “said prediction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vanam et al. (PCT International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2017/184970 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Vanam et al. discloses filter-based prediction for video encoding, using adaptive filter coefficients, that includes:
obtaining one or more prediction parameters for a block to be decoded in a picture (cf. Vanam et al. FIG. 8A, ¶ [0045] line 8, and ¶ [0054] lines 1-2. Prediction parameters may include, inter alia, reference frame information [FIG. 8A], motion vectors [ ¶ [0045] line 8 ], and directional/non-directional intra-prediction modes [ ¶ [0054] lines 1-2]. These parameters are associated with a “block to be decoded in a picture”,
x
a
(
t
)
; cf. ¶ [0108] line 4);
obtaining a prediction block for said block based on said one or more prediction parameters (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0109] , ¶ [0113], FIG. 22B, FIG. 23 and FIG. 25. A motion compensated block, denoted
x
~
a
(
t
-
k
)
[FIG. 23 and ¶ [0109] line 4] or PMCP [ ¶ [0113 lines 2-4 and FIG. 25], constitutes a prediction block for said block derived from, inter alia, MCP parameters discussed above);
obtaining a set of decoded samples in an area neighboring to said block (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0109] and FIG. 22A.
x
~
b
(
t
)
is/are the “the reconstructed pixels” [i.e. decoded samples] “of the neighboring block” of the neighboring block of pixels
x
b
(
t
)
; cf. ¶ [0109] lines 4-6);
obtaining a set of predicted samples in said area neighboring to said block (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0109] and FIG. 22A.
x
~
b
(
t
-
n
)
is/are the “associated motion compensated prediction” associated with the neighboring area; cf. ¶ [0109] lines 6-7);
obtaining one or more filter parameters for a filter based on said set of decoded samples and said set of predicted samples in said area neighboring to said block (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0110]-[0111], ¶ [0113], FIG. 23, and FIG. 25. Filter coefficients [i.e. filter parameters] W = {w0, … , w8} are derived through minimization of the MSE “between reconstructed pixels
x
~
b
(
t
)
and prediction pixels
x
^
b
(
t
)
” shown in equations (25) and/or (27) );
applying said filter to said prediction block for said block to form a filtered prediction block for said block (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0112]-[0113], FIG. 23, and FIG. 24, noting the application of the filter coefficients w0, … , w8 to MCP blocks
x
~
a
(
t
-
n
,
i
,
j
)
in equation (26), the application of the function WF( ) to the MCP block PMCP in equation (27), and the WF Prediction process shown in FIG. 23 and FIG. 25);
decoding said block based on said filtered prediction block for said block (cf. Vanam et al. FIG. 17, noting that the filtered prediction block P obtained via filter-based prediction is added to the residual signal R to obtain a decoded block X) .
REGARDING CLAIM 3, as shown above, Vanam et al. teaches all limitations of claim 1. Vanam et al. further teaches the method of claim 1
said set of predicted samples is obtained based on said one or more prediction parameters for said block (cf. Vanam et al. FIG. 22A and ¶ [0045], [0071], [0109] and [0112] lines 8-9.
x
~
b
(
t
-
n
)
is/are the “associated motion compensated prediction” associated with the neighboring area [ cf. ¶ [0109] lines 6-7 ]. It would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art “motion compensated prediction” is based on one or more motion vectors [cf. ¶ [0045] lines 7-8] – i.e. “one or more prediction parameters”).
REGARDING CLAIM 4, as shown above, Vanam et al. teaches all limitations of claim 1. Vanam et al. further teaches the method of claim 1
said set of predicted samples is obtained based on predicted samples stored from decoding one or more neighboring blocks associated with said template area (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [104] lines 14-15 and FIG. 22A, noting that Vanam et al. describes the template area as “neighboring reconstructed [i.e. decoded] pixels (left neighboring pixels and top neighboring pixels)”. As depicted in FIG. 22A samples [
x
~
b
(
t
)
] from the template undergo motion compensation prediction in order to obtain prediction samples,
x
~
b
(
t
-
n
)
).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, as shown above, Vanam et al. teaches all limitations of claim 1. Vanam et al. further teaches the method of claim 1
said one or more filter parameters are obtained by minimizing a loss function between said set of decoded samples and a filtered version of said set of predicted samples in said area neighboring to said block (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0110], [0111] and [0113]. Filter coefficients (i.e. filter parameters) W = {w0, … , w8} are derived through minimization of the MSE (i.e. a loss function) “between reconstructed pixels
x
~
b
(
t
)
and prediction pixels
x
^
b
(
t
)
” shown in equations (25) and/or (27), where reconstructed pixels
x
~
b
(
t
)
and prediction pixels
x
^
b
(
t
)
are, respectively, a set of decoded samples and a filtered version [cf. equation (24)] of the set of predicted samples in the neighboring area).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, Vanam et al. discloses an apparatus for video decoding (i.e. video decoder 200 in Vanam et al. FIG. 2), comprising one or more processors (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0137] lines 3-5: “methods described herein may be implemented … for execution by a computer or processor” ) and at least one memory (e.g. Reference Picture Store 264 in Vanam et al. FIG. 2). Note that the apparatus set forth in claim 16 performs each of the method steps recited in claim 1. Therefore, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 1 are applicable to the corresponding functional steps recited in claim 16. As such, Vanam et al. anticipates the apparatus for video decoding of claim 16, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIM 18, note that the apparatus set forth in claim 18 performs each of the method steps recited in claim 3. Therefore, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 3 are applicable to the corresponding functional steps recited in claim 18. As such, Vanam et al. anticipates the apparatus for video decoding of claim 18, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 3.
REGARDING CLAIM 19, note that the apparatus set forth in claim 19 performs each of the method steps recited in claim 4. Therefore, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 4 are applicable to the corresponding functional steps recited in claim 19. As such, Vanam et al. anticipates the apparatus for video decoding of claim 19, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 4.
REGARDING CLAIM 20, note that the apparatus set forth in claim 20 performs each of the method steps recited in claim 5. Therefore, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 5 are applicable to the corresponding functional steps recited in claim 20. As such, Vanam et al. anticipates the apparatus for video decoding of claim 20, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 5.
REGARDING CLAIM 25, the methods disclosed by Vanam et al. apply to both decoding and encoding (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0003] lines 1-2). Therefore, because claim 25 recites steps identical to those set forth in claim 1, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 1 are applicable to the encoding method set forth in claim 25. As such, Vanam et al. anticipates the encoding method of claim 25, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIM 27, Vanam et al. discloses an apparatus for video encoding (i.e. video encoder 100 in Vanam et al. FIG. 1), comprising one or more processors (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0137] lines 3-5: “methods described herein may be implemented … for execution by a computer or processor” ) and at least one memory (e.g. Reference Picture Store 164 in Vanam et al. FIG. 1). Note that the apparatus set forth in claim 27 performs each of the method steps recited in claim 25. Therefore, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 25 are applicable to the corresponding functional steps recited in claim 27. As such, Vanam et al. anticipates the apparatus for video decoding of claim 27, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 25.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanam et al. (PCT International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2017/184970 A1), in view of Seregin et al. (Seregin V. et al., "Exploration Experiment on Enhanced Compression beyond VVC capability" Document: JVET-U2024-v2 Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 21st Meeting, by teleconference, 6–15 Jan. 2021).
REGARDING CLAIM 10, as shown above, Vanam et al. teaches all limitations of claim 1. As shown above, with respect to claim 1, Vanam et al. teaches that:
one or more prediction parameters include at least a motion vector and reference picture information.
However, Vanam et al. does not expressly teach or suggest that:
one or more prediction parameters include at least a motion vector, reference picture information, merge mode information, and AMVR (Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution) information.
In contrast, Seregin et al., from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. video encoding and decoding), teaches:
one or more prediction parameters include at least merge mode information and AMVR (Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution) information. (cf. Seregin et al. page 8-9, Section 5.3.3, noting that, because “AMVR mode and TM [template matching] can be cascaded with bilateral matching process in merge modes” [Seregin et al. page 8 lines 9-10], merge mode information and AMVR (Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution) information [both of which constitute “prediction parameters”] must necessarily be included.).
Therefore, 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 video encoding method of Vanam et al. to include, as prediction parameters, merge mode and AMVR (Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution) information, in order to effectuate “finding the closest match between a template” (cf. Seregin et al. page 9 line 5) while utilizing “the merge candidate indicated by the merge index” in a similar search when in merge mode (cf. Seregin et al. page 10 line 5). Modifying the video encoding method of Vanam et al., in this manner, would yield the method of claim 1, wherein:
said one or more prediction parameters include at least a motion vector, reference picture information, merge mode information, and AMVR (Adaptive Motion Vector Resolution) information
as required by claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanam et al. (PCT International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2017/184970 A1), in view of ECM Merge Request (User zhouyiLv, May 26, 2022. JVET-Z0061: Template matching based OBMC. ECM v5.0 Reference Software GitLab Merge Request No. !138. Available: https://vcgit.hhi.fraunhofer.de/ecm/ECM/-/merge_requests/138/diffs?commit_id=4b1b06d61cbd987247cbdc56b648e7a4c33f5804#43dba17c09736c0f9a27ee2e5f2bf8343d8999e9. Accessed: July 07, 2026).
REGARDING CLAIM 11, as shown above, Vanam et al. teaches all limitations of claim 1. Vanam et al. further teaches:
a flag that indicates that said filter is applied (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0098]. A flag WF_flag [ ¶ [0098] line 8 ] is signaled in the bitstream to indicate the use of WF [Weiner Filter] prediction to the decoder” [ ¶ [0098] lines 13-14).
However, Vanam et al. does not expressly teach or suggest:
a flag is used to indicate that template matching is used for prediction, and wherein said flag also indicates that said filter is applied
In contrast, ECM Merge Request, from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. video encoding and decoding), teaches:
a flag is used to indicate that template matching is used for prediction, and wherein said flag also indicates that a filter is applied (cf. ECM Merge Request. ECM Merge Request shows that the JVET_Z0061_TM_OBMC flag was merged into version 5.1 of the ECM [Enhanced Compression Model] reference software. JVET_Z0061_TM_OBMC is used to indicate template matching with OBMC. OMBC [Overlapped Block Motion Compensation] is known in the art of video coding to involve the application of a linear spatial filter to input predicted blocks).
Therefore, 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 WF_flag of Vanam et al. to additionally indicate that template matching is used for prediction, in order to facilitate signaling for the template matching and/or filtering of Vanam et al. ( Vanam et al. ¶ [104] lines 14-15, FIG. 22A, and ¶ [0098] lines 13-14), using a single syntax flag, as shown in ECM Merge Request.
Claims 12, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanam et al. (PCT International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2017/184970 A1), in view of Lim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0086486 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, as shown above, Vanam et al. teaches all limitations of claim 1. Vanam et al. further teaches:
obtaining another prediction for said block (cf. Vanam et al.. ¶ [0104] and ¶ [0114]-[0115], FIG. 19 and FIG. 26. Equation (23) shows a prediction, PWF, of the current block and another prediction, Pintra, of the current block. Similarly, equation (28) shows a prediction, PWF, of the current block and another prediction, PMCP, of the current block).
However, Vanam et al. does not expressly teach or suggest:
obtaining another prediction for said block, said another prediction is filtered with another filter different than said filter.
In contrast, Lim et al., from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. video encoding and decoding), teach:
obtaining another prediction for said block, said another prediction is filtered with another filter different than said filter (cf. Lim et al. ¶ [0238] lines 1-7 and ¶ [0239]-[0241]. “In combined inter intra prediction, filtering is applied to each of a prediction sample generated by intra prediction and a prediction sample generated by inter prediction” [ ¶ [0239] ], where the filter applied to the intra-prediction is “applicable to a block generated by intra prediction” [ ¶ [0240] ], while the other filter applied to the inter-prediction differs in that it is “applicable to a block generated by inter prediction” [ ¶ [0241] ]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vanam et al. so predicted blocks generated by intra-prediction are filtered with a different filter than blocks generated by inter-prediction, in order to “[perform] combined inter intra prediction in consideration of the structure and characteristics of a block” (cf. Lim et al. ¶ [0024]).
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Vanam et al. and Lim et al., as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest all limitations of claim 12. Lim et al. further teaches that:
another prediction for said block is obtained from intra prediction (i.e. “a prediction sample generated by intra prediction” – cf. Lim et al. ¶ [0239]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vanam et al. so predicted blocks generated by intra-prediction are filtered with a different filter than blocks generated by inter-prediction, in order to “[perform] combined inter intra prediction in consideration of the structure and characteristics of a block” (cf. Lim et al. ¶ [0024]).
Please note that, since claim 14 recites the limitations as a disjunction, Lim et al.’s disclosure that “another prediction for said block is obtained from intra prediction” falls within the scope of claim 14.
REGARDING CLAIM 21, note that the apparatus set forth in claim 21 performs each of the method steps recited in claim 12. Therefore, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 12 are applicable to the corresponding functional steps recited in claim 21. As such, the apparatus for video decoding of claim 21 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Vanam et al. and Lim et al., for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 12.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanam et al. (PCT International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2017/184970 A1), in view of Xiu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0359480 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, as shown above, Vanam et al. teaches all limitations of claim 1. Vanam et al. further teaches:
obtaining another prediction for said block (cf. Vanam et al.. ¶ [0104] and ¶ [0114]-[0115], FIG. 19 and FIG. 26. Equation (23) shows a prediction, PWF, of the current block and another prediction, Pintra, of the current block. Similarly, equation (28) shows a prediction, PWF, of the current block and another prediction, PMCP, of the current block) ; and
combining said prediction and said another prediction for said block to form a multihypothesis prediction for said block (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0104] and ¶ [0114]-[0115], FIG. 19 and FIG. 26. Note that, in equations (23) and (28), a prediction P of the current block is formed, respectively, by a weighted combination of intra prediction with Wiener filter intra prediction and the motion compensated prediction with the Wiener filter intra prediction. In both equations, P constitutes a multi-hypothesis prediction of the current block.).
However, Vanam et al. does not expressly teach or suggest:
said multi-hypothesis prediction is filtered with said filter.
In contrast, Xiu et al., from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. video encoding and decoding), teaches a:
multi-hypothesis prediction is filtered with a filter (cf. Xiu et al. FIG. 13, FIG. 14, ¶ [0055] lines 1-5, ¶ [0080] lines 12-23, and ¶ [0081]. FIG. 13, for example, shows a bi-prediction, consisting of two luma prediction signals Y_pred0 and Y_pred1 being averaged [AVERAGE 1302], forming a multi-hypothesis prediction. This prediction is then filtered using a high-pass filter [HIGH-PASS FILTERING] whose coefficients [Y FILTER COEFFICIENTS] have been adaptively derived [via LS TRAINING]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vanam et al. to apply an adaptive filter to the multi-hypothesis prediction, as taught by Xiu et al., because such filtering improves “the efficiency of motion compensated prediction and temporal prediction quality” (cf. Xiu et al. ¶ [0003] and ¶ [0080] lines 12-13). Modifying Vanam et al. with the teachings of Xiu et al., in this manner, yields the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining another prediction for said block; and
combining said prediction and said another prediction for said block to form a multi-hypothesis prediction for said block, wherein said multi-hypothesis prediction is filtered with said filter.
as required by claim 13.
Claims 15, 22, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanam et al. (PCT International Patent Application Publication No. WO 2017/184970 A1), in view of Chen et al. (Chen, Y. et al. "Description of SDR, HDR and 360° video coding technology proposal by Qualcomm and Technicolor – low and high complexity versions" Document: JVET-J0021, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 10th Meeting: San Diego, US, 10–20 Apr. 2018).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, as shown above, Vanam et al. teaches all limitations of claim 1.
However, Vanam et al. does not expressly teach or suggest that:
a neighboring merge block is selected as a template area.
In contrast, Chen et al., from a similar field of endeavor (i.e. video encoding and decoding), teach that:
a neighboring merge block is selected as a template area (cf. Chen et al. pages 17-18, section 2.8.2.2. According to Chen et al., a merge candidate [i.e. merge block] is selected from a list of spatially and/or temporally neighboring blocks [page 17 lines 23-24 and page 18 lines 1-4]. Template matching is then based on the selected merge candidate exclusively [page 18 line 12] such that selected merge candidate provides the template/reference information [page 17 line 14] used during template matching, thereby, functioning as the recited template area).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Vanam et al. to select a neighboring merge block as the template area, as taught by Chen et al., in order to improve coding efficiency and/or reduce complexity (cf. Chen et al. page 3 lines 26-30).
REGARDING CLAIM 22, note that the apparatus set forth in claim 22 performs each of the method steps recited in claim 15. Therefore, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 15 are applicable to the corresponding functional steps recited in claim 22. As such, the apparatus for video decoding of claim 22 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Vanam et al. and Chen et al., for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 15.
REGARDING CLAIM 26, the methods disclosed by Vanam et al. apply to both decoding and encoding (cf. Vanam et al. ¶ [0003] lines 1-2). Therefore, because claim 26 recites steps identical to those set forth in claim 15, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 15 are applicable to the encoding method set forth in claim 26. As such, the encoding method of claim 26 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Vanam et al. and Chen et al., for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 15.
REGARDING CLAIM 28, note that the apparatus set forth in claim 28 performs each of the method steps recited in claim 26. Therefore, the rationales provided above in the rejection of claim 26 are applicable to the corresponding functional steps recited in claim 28. As such, the apparatus for video decoding of claim 28 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Vanam et al. and Chen et al., for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 26.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
Lin, Z. et al. "CE10.2.1: OBMC", Document:JVET-L0101-v1, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 12th Meeting: Macao, CN, 3–12 Oct. 2018
Relevance: Lin et al. disclose overlapped block motion compensation (OBMC), which has been integrated into the Enhanced Compression Model (ECM). The final blending result
F
(
x
,
y
)
is the output of a linear spatial filter (page 3 line 19).
Lv, Z. et al. "EE2-2.3: Template matching based OBMC" Document: JVET-Z0061-v1, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 26th Meeting, by teleconference, 20–29 April 2022
Relevance: Lv et al. disclose template matching based OBMC. The merge request cited above makes reference to this document.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SIANGCHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0982. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 10:00am-06:00pm and Tu 09:00am-05:00pm EST.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
/K S/
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/K S/ Examiner, Art Unit 2486
/JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights