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 § 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 1, 13 are 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 1 recites “current block,” “reconstructed residual data,” and “reconstructed current block.” The term “reconstructed current block” appears to be a typo based on a mixture of the previous two recitations. Its meaning is unclear.
Claims 7 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 7 recites that the claimed filter is a “pre-defined” interpolation filter, but the specification has not disclosed or defined the interpolation filter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites that the claimed filter is a “pre-defined” interpolation filter, but the specification has not disclosed or defined the interpolation filter. Therefore, there is no evidence that the inventors possessed this pre-defined filter.
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, 7-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193).
Regarding Claim 1, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses a method of video coding (video coder and decoder, Figs. 10-11, [0083]), the method comprising:
receiving input data associated with a current block (current block 402, Fig. 4) located at or near a picture boundary (current block 402 is “near” a picture boundary because “near” is subjective and undefined), wherein the input data comprise prediction data (motion vector 404, Fig. 4) and reconstructed residual data (pixels of reference block 406 inside Frame N-1, Fig. 4) related to the current block (pointed to by motion vector 404, Fig. 4);
generating an extended motion-compensated reconstructed block (reference block 406, Fig. 4) for the current block (reference block 406 is the reference block for current block 402, Fig. 4) based on the prediction data (reference block 406 is pointed to by motion vector 404, Fig. 4) and the reconstructed residual data (reference block 406 includes pixels of reference block 406 inside Frame N-1, Fig. 4; reference frame 500, Fig. 5, [0084]-[0086]), wherein the extended motion-compensated reconstructed block (reference block 406, Fig. 4) for the current block (current block 402, Fig. 4) is inter coded (values of samples in sample block 514 as the values of samples in padded pixels 516, Fig. 5, [0085]) and comprises a padded area located outside the picture boundary (padded region 516 outside the padding boundary 506, Fig. 5, [0085]) and a reconstructed current block (boundary block 508, Fig. 5, [0084]-[0086]);
after said generating the extended motion-compensated reconstructed block (after adding the reconstructed residual block to the samples of the predicted block [0132], Fig. 10), applying at least one in-loop filter (applying adaptive loop filter [0133]) to generate a filtered-reconstructed block (reconstructed coding blocks [0133], Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 3, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the current block corresponds to a WxH (inherent) block at or near the picture boundary (boundary block 508, Fig. 5 [0084]-[0086]) and the extended motion-compensated reconstructed block 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 (top-left corner of sample block 514 may have the same position relative to position 512 as position 504 has relative to a top-left corner of boundary block 508 [0085]), wherein M, W and H are positive integers (inherent).
Regarding Claim 4, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the current block comprises a wxh (inherent) subblock (block may be partitioned into subblocks [0088]) at or near the picture boundary (boundary block 508, Fig. 5 [0084]-[0086]) and the extended motion-compensated reconstructed block comprises an extended motion-compensated reconstructed wxh subblock (sample block 514 in reference frame 502 having the same dimension as the current block [0085]), and wherein the extended motion-compensated reconstructed wxh subblock 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 (top-left corner of sample block 514 may have the same position relative to position 512 as position 504 has relative to a top-left corner of boundary block 508 [0085]), wherein M, w and h are positive integers (inherent).
Regarding Claim 5, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein a same interpolation filter, associated with a motion compensation process, is used for generating the padded area and an area inside the reconstructed current block (if the derived padding motion vector points to a sub-pixel position, the coder will apply sub-pixel motion compensation to interpolate sample pixels R [0093], [0091], [0090]).
Regarding Claim 7, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) 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 (if the derived padding motion vector points to a sub-pixel position, the coder will apply sub-pixel motion compensation to interpolate sample pixels R [0093], [0091], [0090]).
Regarding Claim 8, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses the method of Claim 7, wherein said same interpolation filter corresponds to a pre-defined interpolation filter (the video coder may interpolate samples of the reference block from samples of the reference picture [0068]—because the interpolation filter exists, it is pre-defined).
Regarding Claim 9, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses the method of Claim 1, 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).
Regarding Claim 10, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses the method of Claim 9, 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).
Regarding Claim 11, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein a same prediction mode, associated with a motion compensation process, is used for generating the padded area and an area inside the reconstructed 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).
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 Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) in view of Zhang (Jvet-K0363).
Regarding Claim 2, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the current block corresponds to a [] block at or near the picture boundary (boundary block 508, Fig. 5 [0084]-[0086]) and the extended motion-compensated reconstructed block comprises M padded lines beyond the picture boundary (top-left corner of sample block 514 may have the same position relative to position 512 as position 504 has relative to a top-left corner of boundary block 508 [0085]), wherein M is a positive integer (inherent).
Sun 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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) in view of Tourapis (US PG Publication 2021/0051320).
Regarding Claim 6, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses the method of Claim 1, … interpolation filter, associated with a motion compensation process, for generating the padded area (if the derived padding motion vector points to a sub-pixel position, the coder will apply sub-pixel motion compensation to interpolate sample pixels R [0093], [0091], [0090]).
Sun does not disclose, but Tourapis (US PG Publication 2021/0051320) teaches 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 [0083]), associated with the motion compensation process (sub-pixel interpolation for prediction block [0083]), for generating an area inside the reconstructed 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 Sun 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, Sun (US PG Publication 2019/0082193) discloses the method of Claim 11.
Sun 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 Sun because these prediction modes are known, established inter-prediction techniques already used in the art.
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
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