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 Objections
Claims 8, 10, and 12 objected to because of the following informalities: they depend on non-existent Claim 0. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 8 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 8 recites that the claimed filter is a “pre-defined” interpolation filter, but the term “pre-defined” adds ambiguity to the claim. How is a “defined” filter distinguished from “pre-defined?” What is an “undefined” filter? This language makes unclear which filters are included and which are excluded from the scope of the claim. It is not clear whether there is any meaningful limitation at all, supplied by this term, or Claim 8 as a whole.
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) 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532).
Regarding Claim 1, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses a method of video coding (block-based video decoder Fig. 7 [0109], encoder Fig. 6 [0107]), the method comprising:
receiving input data (video bit stream 202 received [0109]) associated with a current block (input video block, current video block [0107] temporally predicted [0107]) located at or near a picture boundary (in loop filtering, neighboring sample is outside a picture boundary [0137]), wherein the input data comprise prediction data (prediction block formed at/by the temporal prediction unit 262 [0109]) and reconstructed residual data (reconstruct the residual block [0109]) related to the current block (prediction block and residual block are added at 226 [0109]);
generating an extended (geometry padding to derive the neighboring sample value [0137] for neighbors outside the picture boundary or face [0137]) motion-compensated (temporal prediction [0108]) reconstructed block for the current block (reconstructed video block [0108]) based on the prediction data (The reconstructed residuals may be added back to the prediction block at 626 to form a reconstructed video block [0108]) and the reconstructed residual data (The quantized residual coefficients may be inverse quantized at 610 and inverse transformed at 612 to form reconstructed residuals [0108]), wherein the extended (geometry padding to derive the neighboring sample value [0137] for neighbors outside the picture boundary or face [0137]) motion-compensated reconstructed block for the current block is inter coded (prediction block formed at/by the temporal prediction unit 262 and the residual block are added at 226 [0109]), generated during a reconstruction stage of the current block (before loop filtering is performed [0137]), and comprises a padded area (geometry padding may be used to derive the neighboring sample value [0137]) located outside the picture boundary (neighboring sample is outside a picture boundary [0137]) and a reconstructed portion of the current block (The reconstructed block may go through in-loop filtering 266 [0109]) located inside the picture boundary (inherent; input video processed block by block [0107]);
after said generating the extended (geometry padding to derive the neighboring sample value [0137] for neighbors outside the picture boundary or face [0137]) motion-compensated reconstructed block (temporal prediction, reconstructed video block [0108]), applying at least one in-loop filter (reconstructed block goes through in-loop filtering 266 [0109]) to generate a filtered-reconstructed block (output of in-loop filter 266 [0109]).
Regarding Claim 3, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the current block corresponds to a WxH block (block based video coding [0107], [0109]) at or near the picture boundary (neighboring sample is outside a picture boundary [0137]) and the extended (geometry padding to derive the neighboring sample value [0137]) motion-compensated reconstructed block (temporal prediction, reconstructed video block [0108]) comprises M padded lines beyond a horizontal picture boundary if the current block is at or near the horizontal picture boundary or beyond a vertical picture boundary if the current block is at or near the vertical picture boundary (padded region is a few samples wide [0133] on all sides of the iamge, Fig. 14(b)), wherein M, W and H are positive integers (inherent).
Regarding Claim 5, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein a same interpolation filter (interpolation filter [0132]), associated with a motion compensation process (used for padding [0132] geometry padding using for temporal prediction [0122], Fig. 16), is used for generating the padded area and an area inside the reconstructed portion of the current block (geometry padding using for temporal prediction [0122], Fig. 16).
Regarding Claim 7, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein a same interpolation filter, associated with a motion compensation process, is used for generating all padded samples outside the picture boundary (nearest neighbor is used [0132]).
Regarding Claim 8, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 0, wherein said same interpolation filter corresponds to a pre-defined interpolation filter (bilinear, bicubic, lanczos, spline interpolation filters, and/or discrete cosine transform based interpolation filter (DCT-IF) may be used. A nearest neighbor interpolation [0132]).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in 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.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) in view of Zhang (Jvet-K0363).
Regarding Claim 2, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the current block corresponds to a [] block at or near the picture boundary (neighboring sample is outside a picture boundary [0137]) and the extended motion-compensated reconstructed block comprises M padded lines beyond the picture boundary, wherein M is a positive integer (padded region is a few samples wide [0133]).
He does not disclose, but Zhang (Jvet-K0363) teaches 4x4 block (boundary 4x4 block, Section 2).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have used a 4x4 boundary block in the coder of Sun because Zhang teaches that using the 4x4 block resulted in coding gain, which is a measure of quality and efficiency, indicating that coding improvements can be expected by using a 4x4 boundary block (Abstract, Conclusion).
Claim(s) 4, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) in view of Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193).
Regarding Claim 4, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the current block comprises a wxh []block (block based video coding [0107], [0109]) at or near the picture boundary (neighboring sample is outside a picture boundary [0137]) and the extended motion-compensated reconstructed block comprises an extended (geometry padding to derive the neighboring sample value [0137]) motion-compensated reconstructed wxh []block (temporal prediction, reconstructed video block [0108]), and wherein the extended motion-compensated reconstructed wxh []block comprises M padded lines beyond a horizontal picture boundary if the wxh subblock is at or near the horizontal picture boundary or beyond a vertical picture boundary if the wxh subblock is at or near the vertical picture boundary (padded region is a few samples wide [0133] on all sides of the iamge, Fig. 14(b)), wherein M, w and h are positive integers (inherent).
He does not disclose, but Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) teaches wxh subblock (block may be partitioned into subblocks [0088]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to use pad the boundary blocks of He using pixels from a reference picture, as in Sun, because Sun teaches that samples from the reference picture will result in more accurate padded samples, improving the padding process and resulting in improved video compression [0029].
Regarding Claim 9, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 1.
He does not disclose, but Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) teaches wherein a prediction mode associated with a motion compensation process, for generating padded samples outside the picture boundary is set to a pre-defined value (a motion vector is used, Fig. 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to use pad the boundary blocks of He using pixels from a reference picture, as in Sun, because Sun teaches that samples from the reference picture will result in more accurate padded samples, improving the padding process and resulting in improved video compression [0029].
Regarding Claim 10, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 0.
He does not disclose, but Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) teaches wherein the pre-defined value corresponds to LIC, BDOF, BCW, filter type, multi-hypothesis, or inter prediction direction (a motion vector is used, Fig. 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to use pad the boundary blocks of He using pixels from a reference picture, as in Sun, because Sun teaches that samples from the reference picture will result in more accurate padded samples, improving the padding process and resulting in improved video compression [0029].
Regarding Claim 11, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 1.
He does not disclose, but Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) teaches wherein a same prediction mode, associated with a motion compensation process, is used for generating the padded area and an area inside the reconstructed portion of the current block (assuming boundary block 508 has a motion vector 510, the video coder may use motion vector 510 to identify a position 512 in reference frame 502. The video coder may then determine a sample block 514 in reference frame 502 having the same dimensions as the current block [0085], Fig. 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to use pad the boundary blocks of He using pixels from a reference picture, as in Sun, because Sun teaches that samples from the reference picture will result in more accurate padded samples, improving the padding process and resulting in improved video compression [0029].
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) in view of Tourapis (US PG Publication 2021/0051320).
Regarding Claim 6, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 1.
He does not disclose, but Tourapis (US PG Publication 2021/0051320) teaches wherein a first interpolation filter, associated with a motion compensation process (sub-pixel interpolation for prediction block [0083]), for generating the padded area (boundary samples [0083]) has a shorter number of taps than a second interpolation filter (M nearest columns/N nearest rows, with M or N being smaller, different number of samples could also be considered from the left versus the right side or from the top versus the bottom [0083]), associated with the motion compensation process (sub-pixel interpolation for prediction block [0083]), for generating an area inside the reconstructed portion of the current block (center positions of the prediction block [0083]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to modify the filtering of the boundary samples of He using an asymmetric number of taps for boundary samples because Tourapis teaches that this can reduce filtering complexity [0083], which enables the process to complete faster with fewer resources, reducing the cost of the coding process.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) in view of Li (US PG Publication 2020/0304805).
Regarding Claim 12, He (US PG Publication 2019/0215532) discloses the method of Claim 0.
He does not disclose, but Li (US PG Publication 2020/0304805) teaches wherein said same prediction mode corresponds to LIC, BDOF, BCW, filter type, or multi-hypothesis ([0199]-[0206] Local Illumination Compensation (LIC); [0219]-[0229] Predication Refinement Based on Bi-Directional Optical Flow (BDOF)).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to use the LIC and BDOF inter prediction modes in the coder of He because these prediction modes are known, established inter-prediction techniques already used in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed 5/20/2026 have clarified the claimed invention and the arguments pertaining to Sun are persuasive. A new ground of rejection is presented in this office action.
Regarding the §112(b) rejection of Claim 8, “pre-defined” filters, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because the scope of predefined, vs. non-predefined, filters is unclear. The specification does not specify which filters are included or excluded from the set of possible filters.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210297672 A1 - intra interpolation across block boundary
US 20250203101 A1 - shorter tap for initial samples at the boundary of the subblock
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights