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 § 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.
Claims 1, 4, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen, “EE2: Enhanced bi-directional motion compensation (test 2.2). JVET-Z0136-v1. Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 \VP 3 and 1S0/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 26th Meeting, by teleconference, 20-29 April 2022.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses: a video coding method comprising:
receiving data to be encoded or decoded as a current block of a current picture of a video;
identifying a first reference block in a first reference picture based on a first block vector of the current block (Figure 1 shows identification of first and second reference blocks in respective reference pictures using list0 and list1.);
identifying a second reference block in a second reference picture based on a second block vector of the current block (Figure 1 shows identification of first and second reference blocks in respective reference pictures using list0 and list1.);
performing out-of-bound (OOB) check for the first and second reference blocks (See test-2.2a, which shows out-of-bound check criteria for reference blocks.);
generating a predictor for the current block based on the first and second reference blocks and
based on the OOB check, wherein when a sample of the first reference block is OOB, a bi-directional motion compensation is not applied to at least one of a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (Chen discloses in 2.1 Test-2.2a, “In Test-2.2a, when combining more than one prediction blocks, the OOB prediction samples are discarded and only the non-OOB predictors are used to generate the final predictor.”);
and
encoding or decoding the current block by using the generated predictor (See 2.2, “After examining the OOB condition for each sample, the final prediction samples of one bi-directional block is generated as follows:”).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses: the video coding method of claim 1, wherein: when a sample of the first reference block is OOB over a left or right boundary of the first reference picture or when a sample of the first reference block is OOB over a top or bottom boundary of the first reference picture, the bi-directional motion compensation is not applied (See Test-2.2a conditions.).
Electronic apparatus claim 12 is directed to an electronic apparatus comprising a video coder circuit configured to perform steps corresponding to the steps of video coding method claim 1. Therefore, apparatus claim 12 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as given above with respect to claim 1.
Video decoding method claim 13 corresponds to video coding method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as given above with respect to claim 1.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Luo, US 2021/0266594 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses: the video coding method of claim 1, wherein:
when a sample of the first reference block is OOB over a top or bottom boundary of the first reference picture, a corresponding predictor sample is generated by using a corresponding non-OOB sample from the second reference block without blending (See Test-2.2a, where Chen discloses: “If Pi, jL0 is OOB and Pi, j10 is non-OOB Pi, jfinal = Pi,jL1, else if Pi, jL0 is non-OOB and Pi,j L1 is OOB Pi, jfinal = Pi,j01, etc.).
Chen does not disclose:
when a sample of the first reference block is OOB over a left or right boundary of the first reference picture, a corresponding predictor sample is generated by blending a horizontal wraparound sample from the first reference picture with a corresponding non-OOB sample from the second reference block in the second reference picture,
However, using a horizontal wraparound sample in the case that a first reference block is OOB of a left or right boundary of the first reference picture, as shown in figure 6a.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the wraparound prediction disclosed in Luo with the exclusion of OOB reference data in the vertical direction as disclosed in Chen. The horizontal wraparound prediction takes advantage of the equirectangular projection format common in 360-degree video and adopted in VVC. As disclosed in [0092] in Luo, “For a general projection format, it may be difficult to derive the corresponding neighboring samples in the spherical domain, because it involves 2D-to-3D and 3D-to-2D coordinate conversion, as well as sample interpolation for fractional sample positions. This problem can be resolved for the left and right boundaries of the ERP or PERP projection format, as the spherical neighbors outside of the left picture boundary can be obtained from samples inside the right picture boundary, and vice versa.”
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chen in view of Luo discloses the limitations of claim 2, upon which claim 3 depends. This combination, specifically Luo, further discloses: the video coding method of claim 2, wherein the video is a 360-degree video in an equi-rectangular projection (ERP) format (See Luo [0092], disclosing ERP format.).
Claims 5-8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Deng, US 2024/0388694 A1,
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends. Luo does not disclose: the video coding method of claim 1, wherein the first reference picture or the second reference picture is the current picture.
However, this feature is disclosed in analogous art by Deng, which discloses performing combined intra-inter prediction (CIIP), in which one of two reference samples for a current coding unit is intra predicted. See Deng [0268].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate CIIP into the disclosure of Chen. As disclosed in Deng, CIIP was part of the VVC standard, of which the disclosure of Chen is also a proposed addition, and CIIP has the benefit combining intra and inter prediction for a single reference block, potentially leading to rate-distortion improvements. See Deng [0268]. Combining these elements respectively disclosed in Chen and in Deng would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Chen in view of Deng discloses the limitations of claim 5, upon which claim 6 depends. This combination, specifically Deng, further discloses: the video coding method of claim 5, wherein the first block vector or the second block vector is an intra-prediction direction (See CIIP in [0268].)
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 7. Chen does not disclose: the video coding method of claim 1, wherein:
the current block comprises a plurality of geometric partitions, the first reference block is used to generate a first predictor for a first geometric partition, the second reference block is used to generate a second predictor for a second geometric partition,
wherein a corresponding predictor sample is generated by blending samples of the first and
second predictors along a boundary between the first and second geometric partitions, wherein out-of-bound samples of the first and second predictors are excluded from the blending.
However, Deng discloses in [0275]-[0277] performing blending processing along partition edges in the case of geometric partitioning being used:” After predicting each of part of the geometric partition, the sample values along the geometric partition edge are adjusted using a blending processing with adaptive weights.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine the geometric partitioning mode disclosed in Deng as part of the VVC standard with the OOB bi-directional prediction checking disclosed in Chen, by checking the OOB status of predictors for first and second geometric partitions, in order to combine the refined prediction angles of geometric partitioning with the OOB checking for 360-degree video, in order to achieve better overall compression accuracy. Doing so would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Chen and in Deng, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 8. Chen does not disclose: the video coding method of claim 1, wherein the generated predictor is a combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP), wherein the first reference block provides inter-prediction samples and the second reference block provide intra-prediction samples
However, this feature is disclosed in analogous art by Deng, which discloses performing combined intra-inter prediction (CIIP), in which one of two reference samples for a current coding unit is intra predicted. See Deng [0268].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate CIIP into the disclosure of Chen. As disclosed in Deng, CIIP was part of the VVC standard, of which the disclosure of Chen is also a proposed addition, and CIIP has the benefit combining intra and inter prediction for a single reference block, potentially leading to rate-distortion improvements. See Deng [0268]. Combining these elements respectively disclosed in Chen and in Deng would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 10. Chen does not disclose: the video coding method of claim 1, wherein the first block vector is refined to minimize a calculated template matching cost between a reference template neighboring the first reference block and a current template neighboring the current block, wherein OOB samples of the reference template are excluded from the cost calculation.
However, Deng discloses bilateral matching MV refinement in [0299].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine bilateral matching MV refinement disclosed in Deng as part of the VVC standard with the OOB bi-directional prediction checking disclosed in Chen, by checking the OOB status of predictors for first and second geometric partitions, in order to refine the motion estimation accuracy in 360-degree video, while checking for OOB reference samples, in order to achieve better overall compression accuracy. Doing so would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Chen and in Deng, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 11. Chen does not disclose: the video coding method of claim 1, wherein the first and second block vectors are refined to minimize a bilateral matching cost based on the first and second reference blocks, wherein OOB samples in the first and second reference blocks are excluded from the cost calculation.
However, Deng discloses performing block-based bilateral matching MV refinement, in which first and second MV are refined, “The refined MVs (MV0_pass1 and MV1_pass1) are derived around the initiate MVs based on the minimum bilateral matching cost between the two reference blocks in L0 and L1.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to combine bilateral matching MV refinement disclosed in Deng as part of the VVC standard with the OOB bi-directional prediction checking disclosed in Chen, by checking the OOB status of predictors for first and second geometric partitions, in order to refine the motion estimation accuracy in 360-degree video, while checking for OOB reference samples, in order to achieve better overall compression accuracy. Doing so would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Chen and in Deng, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen.
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses: the video coding method of claim 1, further comprising performing an additional OOB check for a third reference block, wherein the predictor is generated further based on the third reference block and the additional OOB check.
Although not explicitly disclosed in Chen, performing an additional OOB check for a third reference block, and generating the predictor using this additional third reference block would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a mere carrying forward of the prior art teaching to perform out of boundary checks for first and second reference blocks to generate a predictor, as disclosed in Chen.
MPEP 2144.05.II.A. states, “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art."”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights