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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 is directed to a computer readable recording medium that is not limited to only include non-transitory hardware embodiments, and can thus be interpreted to include software embodiments per se. Therefore, it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (US 20190191155) (hereinafter Ko).
Regarding claim 15, this claim is directed to a computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a method. Significantly, the claimed computer readable medium is not implementing any method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a method. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by an method).
Applicant seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream with video content) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, this claim is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by the recited method) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, this claim is anticipated by Ko, as Ko paragraph 31 discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream.
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 taught 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-3, 6, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 20190149836) (hereinafter Moon) in view of Ko et al. (US 20190191155) (hereinafter Ko).
Regarding claim 1, Moon teaches A method of decoding an image, the method comprising:
collecting prediction information from neighboring blocks of a current block (see Moon paragraphs 17-19 regarding obtaining intra prediction modes of neighboring blocks to a current block);
deriving, based on the prediction parameter, prediction information for each of sub-blocks in the current block (see Moon paragraphs 479-504 regarding deriving a prediction mode of additional sub-blocks based on the prediction mode of a first subblock).
However, Moon does not explicitly teach deriving a prediction parameter as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Ko, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches deriving, based on the collected prediction information, a prediction parameter of the current block (see Ko paragraphs 342-343, 420-428, 481, and figure 43 regarding decoding using an intra mode in an MPM list from adjacent blocks and deriving parameters of curved intra prediction- in combination with Moon, the method of deriving the prediction parameter may be applied to the prediction information of Moon); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Moon to include the teaching of Ko so that in combination with Moon, the method of deriving the prediction parameter may be applied to the prediction information of Moon.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance the process of deriving prediction parameters for a block (see Ko paragraphs 342-343, 420-428, 481, and figure 43).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches wherein when a prediction mode of the current block is an intra prediction, the prediction information is an intra prediction mode (see Moon paragraphs 17-19 regarding deriving an intra prediction mode of additional sub-blocks based on the intra prediction mode of a first subblock).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches wherein: the prediction parameter includes a pair of weights and an offset, and an intra prediction mode of the sub-block is derived by summing a first value, derived by a multiplication between a x-axis position of the sub-block and a first weight, a second value, derived by a multiplication between a y-axis position of the sub-block and a second weight, and the offset (see Moon paragraphs 541-563 regarding curve (weighted) mode for subblocks when intra prediction modes increase or decrease where an offset is applied based on the x and y axis position of a subblock and weighted according to the position, also known as being multiplied by a scaling factor).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches wherein when a prediction mode of the current block is an inter prediction, the prediction information is a motion vector (see Moon paragraphs 198-200 regarding determining motion information derived for current block).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches wherein: the image decoding method further includes determining whether to derive the prediction parameter based on the collected prediction information, and when it is determined that the prediction parameter is not derived based on the collected prediction information, the prediction parameter is derived from a neighboring block adjacent to the current block (see Moon paragraphs 180 and 199-200 regarding regression analysis model estimating weight prediction parameter and when parameters are merged with neighbor block, using the same parameters, and when not merged, collected motion information is obtained).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches wherein the prediction parameter of the current block is set to be the same as a prediction parameter of the neighboring block (see Moon paragraphs 180 and 199-200 regarding regression analysis model estimating weight prediction parameter and when parameters are merged with neighbor block, using the same parameters, and when not merged, collected motion information is obtained).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches wherein a neighboring block used by the current block to derive a prediction parameter is specified based on index information (see Moon paragraphs 180 and 199-200 regarding regression analysis model estimating weight prediction parameter and when parameters are merged with neighbor block, using the same parameters, and when not merged, collected motion information is obtained).
Independent claim(s) 14-15 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding the inverse encoding method or the inverse encoding method as a bitstream stored on a recording medium and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 20190149836) (hereinafter Moon) in view of Ko et al. (US 20190191155) (hereinafter Ko), further in view of Xiu et al. (US 20220014741) (hereinafter Xiu).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Moon and Ko does not explicitly teach an offset range condition as needed for the limitations of claim 4.
Xiu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein when a result value obtained by summing the first value, the second value and the offset is out of a range of a predefined intra prediction mode, the result value is clipped to derive the intra prediction mode of the sub-block (see Xiu paragraph 131 regarding intra mode of not first sub partition being clipped to the closest intra mode that doesn't use extra reference samples- in combination with Moon and Ko, the clipping may be incorporated into the method of intra prediction mode selection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Moon and Ko to include the teaching of Xiu so that in combination with Moon and Ko, the clipping may be incorporated into the method of intra prediction mode selection.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance coding efficiency during out of range conditions (see Xiu paragraph 131).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Moon and Ko does not explicitly teach an offset range condition as needed for the limitations of claim 5.
Xiu, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein when a result value obtained by summing the first value, the second value and the offset is out of a range of a predefined intra prediction mode, the intra prediction mode of the sub-block is derived by adding or subtracting a predefined constant to or from the result value (see Xiu paragraph 131 regarding padding the value of the nearest sample, a predefined constant, in the intra mode- in combination with Moon and Ko, the clipping may be incorporated into the method of intra prediction mode selection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Moon and Ko to include the teaching of Xiu so that in combination with Moon and Ko, the clipping may be incorporated into the method of intra prediction mode selection.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to enhance coding efficiency during out of range conditions (see Xiu paragraph 131).
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (US 20190149836) (hereinafter Moon) in view of Ko et al. (US 20190191155) (hereinafter Ko), further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220368916) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Moon and Ko does not explicitly teach reference process as needed for the limitations of claim 7.
Zhang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein when a reference picture of a neighboring block is different from a basis reference picture, a scaled motion vector of the neighboring block is collected (see Zhang paragraph 6, 11, and 360 regarding motion information derived from neighbor block and motion information of neighboring reference picture list is scaled to current reference picture list- in combination with Moon and Ko, the reference picture scaling may be incorporated into the handling of reference pictures of Moon and Ko).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Moon and Ko to include the teaching of Zhang so that in combination with Moon and Ko, the reference picture scaling may be incorporated into the handling of reference pictures of Moon and Ko.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide efficient coding solutions for various coding conditions (see Zhang paragraph 6, 11, 99-101, and 360).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Moon, Ko, and Zhang teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Moon, Ko, and Zhang teaches wherein the basis reference picture is a first reference picture in a reference picture list or a reference picture closest to a current picture in the reference picture list (see Zhang paragraph 6, 11, and 360 regarding motion information derived from neighbor block and motion information of neighboring reference picture list is scaled to current reference picture list- in combination with Moon and Ko, the reference picture scaling may be incorporated into the handling of reference pictures of Moon and Ko).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide efficient coding solutions for various coding conditions (see Zhang paragraph 6, 11, 99-101, and 360).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Moon and Ko does not explicitly teach independent parameter derivation as needed for the limitations of claim 9.
Zhang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the prediction parameter is derived independently for each of a LO direction and a L1 direction (see Zhang paragraph 6, 11, and 360 regarding motion information derived from neighbor block and motion information of neighboring reference picture list is scaled to current reference picture list but maintained from current- in combination with Moon and Ko's merging of parameters of neighbor blocks, the prediction parameters may be derived independently of the L0 and L1 directions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Moon and Ko to include the teaching of Zhang so that in combination with Moon and Ko's merging of parameters of neighbor blocks, the prediction parameters may be derived independently of the L0 and L1 directions.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide efficient coding solutions for various coding conditions (see Zhang paragraph 6, 11, 99-101, and 360).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Moon and Ko teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
However, the combination of Moon and Ko does not explicitly teach affine conditions as needed for the limitations of claim 10.
Zhang, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein when an inter prediction based on an affine model is applied to the current block, control point motion vectors of the current block are derived based on the prediction parameter, and wherein a motion vector of the each of the sub-blocks is derived based on the control point motion vectors (see Zhang paragraph 99-101 regarding affine model inherited from neighboring blocks and when in merge mode in current block is affine mode, the current block may be further split into multiple subblocks with their motion information being derived from CPMV of current block - in combination with Moon and Ko, the affine model and CP MV methods may be applied to the scheme of Moon and Ko).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the combination of Moon and Ko to include the teaching of Zhang so that in combination with Moon and Ko, the affine model and CP MV methods may be applied to the scheme of Moon and Ko.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to provide efficient coding solutions for various coding conditions (see Zhang paragraph 6, 11, 99-101, and 360).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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 DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483