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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 13, 17-19, 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 12335460 B2-Chen et al (hereinafter referred to as “Chen”), in view of US 20200260091 A1-Pham Van et al (hereinafter referred to as “Pham”)
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method of encoding by an encoder (abstract, wherein methods are described for video coding), comprising:
receiving, by at least one processor, a set of frames including a reference frame and a current frame (Column 1, lines 45-55);
performing, by the at least one processor, a multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP) procedure for a coding unit (CU) located in the current frame based on a search block in the reference frame (Column 6, lines 1-15); and
in response to a size of the search block in the reference frame meeting a threshold size, selecting, by the at least one processor, a first weighting factor from a first set of more than two weighting factors associated with the MHP procedure (column 6, lines 45-60).
Chen fails to disclose selecting weights based on block sizes.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pham discloses selecting weights based on block sizes ([0230])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to disclose in response to a size of the search block in the reference frame meeting a threshold size, selecting, by the at least one processor, a first weighting factor from a first set of more than two weighting factors associated with the MHP procedure as taught by Pham, to improve combined inter-intra prediction mode for prediction of video data ([0022], Pham).
Regarding claim 5, Pham discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the performing, by the at least one processor, the MHP procedure for the CU located in the current frame based on a search block in the reference frame comprises: obtaining, by the at least one processor, motion information associated with the CU located in the current frame based and the search block in the reference frame using template matching (column 10, lines 35-50); and encoding, by the at least one processor, the current frame based on the motion information and the first weighting factor (column 10, lines 35-50), wherein the first weighting factor is selected based on the motion information obtained via template matching (column 15, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 6, Pham discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by at least one processor, a weighting factor sign associated with the first weighting factor (column 10, lines 55-67); and sending, by the at least one processor, an indication of the weighting factor sign associated with the first weighting factor in a bitstream ((column 10, lines 55-67)).
Regarding claim 13, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 23, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 5 and are applicable for claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 24.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-4, 14-16, 20-22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights