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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the independent claims recite the broad recitation “wherein the plurality of candidates includes at least one of a spatial candidate, a temporal candidate, or a derived candidate” and the claim also recites “wherein motion information of the derived candidate is derived based on at least one of a top-right block of the current block or a bottom-left block of the current block” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For example, under BRI, the plurality of candidates are interpreted as multiple spatial candidates or a spatial and temporal candidate since the claim limitation states “at least one of….or”. This claim is unclear because the next limitation in the claim further defines the derived candidate but it does not have to be included in the plurality of candidates.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
The independent claims recite “wherein the plurality of candidates includes at least one of a spatial candidate, a temporal candidate, or a derived candidate”. Therefore, the claim is only defining a candidate list including a plurality of candidates (i.e. two) and including at least spatial or temporal candidates. It is known, for one of ordinary skill in the art, for generating a candidate list for a current block utilizing spatial and/or temporal candidates for inter prediction. Please correct the claim limitations to include novelty of the candidate list including plurality of candidates of spatial, temporal and a derived candidate.
The independent claims recite “wherein motion information of the derived candidate is derived based on at least one of a top-right block of the current block or a bottom-left block of the current block.” What is a top-right block or a bottom-left block of the current block? Is the top-right block…a top-right subblock? It is unclear what is a block of a block.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the at least one of the top-right block or the bottom-left block is determined by searching for an available block having motion information different from at least one of a left block or a top block of the current block.” It is unclear what is meant by a left/top block of the current block. Based on the specification, it appears these, left/top blocks are spatial adjacent blocks to the current block. Please clarify the claim language.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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 12 is applying product-by-process type claim language, where the bitstream is being described as a product that is the result of the coding method process. The method steps are not required elements of the CRM because they only describe the scope of the product, which in this claim is the bitstream. The contents of the bitstream, defined by how the bitstream was generated, only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result are descriptive language. See MPEP $2111.05. The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. The claim scope (in light of the specification) describes the relationship of the contents of the bitstream in terms of how video content can be encoded into a bitstream, however there is no functional relationship between the contents of the information in the bitstream and the storage of that bitstream of the medium.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (herein after will be referred to as Chen) (US 20110099594).
A bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP $2113 recites "Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps". Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
"To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated". MPEP $2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed "computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP $2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 16 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP $2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Chen which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Paragraph 0015, 0031).
Claims 1-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20220174287).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an image decoding method, comprising:
generating a candidate list of a current block; [See Lee [Fig. 31]]
deriving motion information of the current block based on one of a plurality of candidates belonging to the candidate list; and [See Lee [Fig. 31]]
performing inter prediction for the current block based on the motion information of the current block, [See Lee [Fig. 31]]
wherein the plurality of candidates includes at least one of a spatial candidate, a temporal candidate, or a derived candidate, wherein motion information of the derived candidate is derived based on at least one of a top-right block of the current block or a bottom-left block of the current block. [See Lee [0287, 0292-0297 and Fig. 40] Motion information of a representative sub-block in a coding unit is stored as inter region motion information, and the representative sub-block corresponds to a top-right sub-block or bottom-left sub-block of the current block….candidate list of Spatial merge candidate, Temporal merge candidate and inter region merge candidate.]
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lee discloses
wherein the top-right block of the current block is a block including a top-right reference position, wherein the bottom-left block of the current block is a block including a bottom-left reference position, and wherein the top-right reference position and the bottom-left reference position are determined based on at least one of a width or a height of the current block. [See Lee [Fig. 40]] Recognizing a top-right or bottom-left sub-block location. It is inherent these sub-blocks will be dependent on block size.]
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lee discloses
wherein the top-right block of the current block is a block including a first position moved by a predetermined first distance in a left or right direction from a top-right reference position, [See Lee [Fig. 40] Width of Sub-block including top-right corner.]
wherein the bottom-left block of the current block is a block including a second position moved by a predetermined second distance in a bottom or top direction from a bottom-left reference position, and [See Lee [Fig. 40] Height of Sub-block including bottom-left corner.]
wherein the first position and the second position are positioned on a same straight line. [See Chuang [Fig. 3] Top-right corner of sub-block and bottom-left corner of sub-block are positioned via a straight line.]
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lee discloses
wherein the top-right block of thecurrent block is a block including a first position moved by a predetermined distance in a left or right direction from a top-right reference position, [See Lee [Fig. 40] Width of Sub-block including top-right corner.]
wherein the bottom-left block of the current block is a block including a second position moved by the predetermined distance in a bottom or top direction from a bottom-left reference position. [See Lee [Fig. 40] Height of Sub-block including bottom-left corner.]
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the method of claim 4. Furthermore, Lee discloses
wherein the predetermined distance is adaptively determined based on a size of the current block. [See Lee [Fig. 40] Width/Height of sub-blocks are inherently determined via overall size of current block.]
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lee discloses
wherein the at least one of the top-right block or the bottom-left block is determined by searching for an available block having motion information different from at least one of a left block or a top block of the current block. [See Lee [0281] When motion information is the same, inter region merge candidate is not added to a merge candidate list.]
Regarding claim 11, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 13.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220174287) in view of Kim et al. (herein after will be referred to as Kim) (US 20250211783).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lee does not explicitly disclose
wherein a search direction for determining the at least one of the top-right block or the bottom-left block is determined based on whether a width of the current block is greater than a height of the current block.
However, Kim does disclose
wherein a search direction for determining the at least one of the top-right block or the bottom-left block is determined based on whether a width of the current block is greater than a height of the current block. [See Kim [0248] Search is determined based on the width/height of the current block…prioritizing vertical or horizontal direction.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Lee to add the teachings of Kim, in order to improve upon video processing [See Kim [0003-0004]].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights