DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on December 27, 2024. Claims 1-12 are pending and are examined.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claim Interpretation
The independent claims use the term “variance” in the phrase “…at least one of a first linear model parameter related to a variance in a horizontal direction or a second linear model parameter related to a variance in a vertical direction”. In accordance with the specification and, for the purposes of this Action, Examiner interprets the term “variance” to refer to an “amount of change” (see Applicant’s Specification ¶¶118, 127).
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “A computer-readable storage medium configured to store a bitstream generated by the image encoding method of claim 10.” Claim 10 is directed to an image encoding method with several steps. The claim appears to be directed to the storage medium itself. However, the claim then recites the generation of a bitstream by several method steps. It is not clear whether Applicant is attempting to claim the storage medium itself or a method of encoding a bitstream. A storage medium in and of itself cannot execute any method of coding, without a processor executing the functions stored in that medium, it is simply storage, its only function is to store. Accordingly, without the recitation of the execution of such instructions and a processor for doing so, it is not clear what applicant is attempting to claim – a storage medium storing a bitstream or a method of generating a bitstream. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
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)(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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0016789 (“Lou”).
With respect to claim 11, patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id. Claim 11 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium. This computer-readable storage medium is recited as being configured to store a bitstream. The claim then recites that the bitstream is generated by the method of claim (which recites several method steps). The claim does not detail instructions executed by a processor. It merely details a bitstream stored on a medium. The reference to the method of claim 10 provides how the bitstream is generated, however, the method of generating a bitstream does not appear to be the subject matter of the claim. Rather, the claim is directed to the storage medium itself, storing a bitstream. MPEP 2111.05 states that where computer programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship is found. However, where the claim is directed to a computer-readable medium that merely serves as support for information or data, no functional relationship exists, e.g., a memory stick containing tables of batting averages does not provide a functional relationship between the data and the computer. Like this memory stick storing batting data, Applicant has recited a storage medium storing a bitstream. This bitstream, as recited, is generated with several steps, but the claim is not directed to the generation of the bitstream – it is directed to the storage of the bitstream on a computer-readable medium. The claim includes no intended computer to perform any of the generation elements/steps of claim 10 and the bitstream itself is not a form of programming. Accordingly, the computer-readable medium of claim 11 merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship; patentable weight, without such programming/computer, is not given to the steps to generate the bitstream. Therefore, the claim scope is just a computer-readable storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Lou which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (see ¶155).
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0292005 (“Ghaznavi”) in view of the level of skill in the art.
With respect to claim 1, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
An image decoding method (see Figs. 4b, ¶¶59-60, describing an image decoding method) comprising:
configuring a reference sample for linear model intra prediction based on reconstructed neighboring samples of a current block (see Figs. 5, 9a, 9b, ¶¶168-175, describing reconstructing and down-sampling luma samples to predict chroma samples, i.e., configuring a reference sample, and that these down-sampled reconstructed luma samples, i.e., reference samples, are used for linear model intra prediction based on reconstructed neighboring chroma samples of a current CU/block; although the paragraphs listed above make clear that the prediction described is from neighboring samples in the same frame, i.e., intra prediction, see also ¶¶57, 124, 128, 188, 195, verifying that this is an intra prediction process);
deriving linear model parameters based on the reference sample, the linear model parameters including at least one of a first linear model parameter related to a variance in a horizontal direction or a second linear model parameter related to a variance in a vertical direction (see citations with respect to element above, claim interpretation section above, and ¶¶180-181, describing deriving linear model parameters α and β based on the downsampled reconstructed luma samples, i.e., reference samples, and that the linear model parameters are based on comparing neighboring samples to the left or above to find their smallest and largest values, i.e., related to an amount of change/variance in a horizontal/left or a vertical/above direction); and
generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the linear model parameters (see citations with respect to elements above, including ¶¶168-170 Equations 1a and 1b, describing that these linear model parameters are used to generate predicted chroma samples of the CU, i.e., generating a prediction sample of the current block).
Ghaznavi does not explicitly use the term “variance”. However, this term is interpreted to mean “amount of change” in accordance with Applicant’s specification (see claim interpretation section above). Ghaznavi teaches that α = (Ya - Yb)/( Xa - Xb) and β = Yb - α∙ Xb and that these values (Xa, Xb, Ya, Xb, and thereby α and β) are determined by comparing four left or above neighboring samples to find two smaller values and two larger values (see ¶¶180-181). In other words, Ghaznavi teaches that α is related to/determined by the variance (change in amount) of the left (horizontal) or above (vertical) samples. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood that when one compares samples to find the largest and smallest of them, this is a determination of change in amount – if they are all the same, there is no change in amount, if any are larger/smaller, there is a measurable change in amount. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify Ghaznavi to use the term “variance” with respect to this comparison and determination of larger and smaller values. Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Ghaznavi additionally discloses:
wherein the reference sample includes at least one of reference samples included in a left sample line adjacent to the current block, reference samples included in an upper sample line adjacent to the current block, or an upper left reference sample adjacent to the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, including Figs. 5, 9a, 9b, ¶¶172-182, describing that the neighbors/reference samples include those in a left sample line adjacent to the current block and an upper sample line adjacent to the current block, as well as the upper left reference sample adjacent to the current block).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Ghaznavi additionally discloses:
the deriving of the linear model parameters includes:
deriving the first linear model parameter and the second linear model parameter based on the reference sample; and
applying a weight to at least one of the first linear model parameter or the second linear model parameter (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that α and β are derived based on the downsampled reconstructed luma samples, i.e., reference sample, and ¶¶183, 215, 223, 235, 239-240, 250-251, 264, describing different methods of modifying/finetuning the CCLM parameters, i.e., applying a weight, to these parameters).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of dependent claim 3. Ghaznavi additionally discloses:
wherein the weight is determined based on predefined encoding information (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 3 above, including ¶264, describing that the finetuning of the parameters may be based on criteria such as block size, availability, location, etc., i.e., predefined encoding information).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 4.
With respect to claim 5, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of dependent claim 4. Ghaznavi additionally discloses:
wherein the predefined encoding information includes at least one of a width, a height, a size, a shape, or a ratio of the width and height of the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the finetuning of the parameters may be based on block size, i.e., the encoding information includes at least one of width, height, size, shape, or ratio of width and height).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 5.
With respect to claim 6, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of dependent claim 2. Ghaznavi additionally discloses:
wherein the configuring of the reference sample includes setting the reference samples included in one of the left sample line or the upper sample line to a predetermined value (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1-2 above describing using left and above sample line reference samples to predict the chroma samples and Figs. 6, 9a-9b, ¶¶195-197, 261-262, describing that such a prediction may consider samples of multiple reference lines and that some of these samples may not be fetched, but may be padded with the closest samples, i.e., they may be set to a predetermined value).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 6.
With respect to claim 8, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of dependent claim 6. Ghaznavi additionally discloses:
wherein the predetermined value is determined as a value of a first reference sample or a last reference sample based on the upper left reference sample among the reference samples included in one of the left sample line or the upper sample line (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 6 above, describing that the predetermined value may be a closest value, i.e., a last reference sample among the reference samples in the left or upper line – see Fig. 6).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 8.
With respect to claim 9, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Ghaznavi additionally discloses:
further comprising obtaining a reference line offset indicating one of multiple reference sample lines of the current block,
wherein the reference sample is constructed using reference samples included in a reference sample line indicated by the reference line offset (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Fig. 6, ¶¶195-197, 261-262, describing that the system may also employ MRL and obtain an mrl_idx, i.e., reference line offset, indicating one of multiple reference lines of the sample block and that this reference line may be used to construct the neighboring reference sample).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Ghaznavi additionally discloses:
An image encoding method (see Fig. 4a, ¶¶59-60, describing and image encoding method) comprising:
configuring a reference sample for linear model intra prediction based on reconstructed neighboring samples of a current block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above);
deriving linear model parameters based on the reference sample, the linear model parameters including at least one of a first linear model parameter related to a variance in a horizontal direction or a second linear model parameter related to a variance in a vertical direction (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above); and
generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the linear model parameters (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 10.
With respect to claim 12, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 10. Ghaznavi additionally discloses:
A method of transmitting data of image information (see Figs. 4a-4b, ¶¶53, 59, describing transmitting encoded data from an encoder to a decoder, i.e., a method of transmission), comprising:
configuring a reference sample for linear model intra prediction based on reconstructed neighboring samples of a current block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claims 1 and 10 above);
deriving linear model parameters based on the reference sample, the linear model parameters including at least one of a first linear model parameter related to a variance in a horizontal direction or a second linear model parameter related to a variance in a vertical direction (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claims 1 and 10 above);
generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the linear model parameters (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claims 1 and 10 above);
generating a bitstream by encoding the current block based on the prediction sample; and transmitting data including the bitstream (see citations with respect to elements above and Figs. 4a-4b, ¶¶50, 53, 59, 63, 279, 291, describing that the encoder transmits a compressed representation of the video, i.e., bitstream, by encoding a current block based on the transmission sample and transmitting the data to the decoder in the bitstream).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0281838 (“Lee”).
With respect to claim 7, Ghaznavi discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Ghaznavi in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of dependent claim 6.
Ghaznavi discloses padding unavailable neighboring samples with, for example a closest sample (see citations with respect to claims 6 and 8 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined value is one of an average value, a maximum value, a minimum value, or a median value of the reference samples included in one of the left sample line or the upper sample line.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee discloses that it was known to pad an unavailable neighboring sample using an average value of samples:
wherein the predetermined value is one of an average value, a maximum value, a minimum value, or a median value of the reference samples included in one of the left sample line or the upper sample line (see Fig. 15, ¶¶483, 485-88, describing that where a neighboring sample in an above or left reference line is unavailable or outside a particular region, it may be padded/replaced with a value that is an average value of reference samples in the line).
Lee discloses that using such an average value to fill/pad unavailable/outer samples was a known alternative to using a closest/immediately preceding value (see ¶¶487-488). Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, using an average value of upper or left samples instead of a closest value to pad samples like those outer samples of Ghaznavi’s Segments A and F (Fig. 5) would have represented nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for using an average value of upper or left samples to pad/fill the unavailable/outer samples, e.g., Sections A and F of Fig. 5, in the prediction process of Ghaznavi as taught by Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights