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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action because amended claim 1 does more than merely incorporate the limitation previously recited in prior claim 2. Rather, the amended claim 1 further requires that the encoded video bitstream is obtained by an encoder encoding a modified picture, and the modified picture is obtained by applying the predefined geometric operation to luma samples and chroma samples of an original picture of an input video sequence, and afterword, obtaining, by the decoder, the original picture by performing the inverse geometry operation on the modified picture.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is still directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream. to be decoded by an decoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to decode 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 computer-readable recording medium storing the bitstream
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, 3, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US20200404279A1), hereinafter referred to as Choi, in view of Andrivon et al. (US20250267281A1), hereinafter referred to as Andrivon.
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses method for video decoding, comprising:
obtaining, by a decoder, a syntax element that indicates a predefined geometric operation and an encoded video bitstream (See Choi, ¶¶[0068] – [0071] disclosing a SPS and a PPS syntax elements enabling reference picture resampling (RPR). RPR is a geometric operation (scaling). See also Fig. 7) ;
reconstructing, by the decoder, the modified picture based on the encoded video bitstream (See Choi, ¶¶[0098] – [0099] disclosing reconstructing a modified picture based on the encoded video bitstream);
obtaining, by the decoder, the luma samples and the chroma samples of the original picture (See Choi, ¶¶[0003] disclosing uncompressed digital video pictures consist of luminance and associated chrominance sample).
Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein the encoded video bitstream is obtained by an encoder encoding a modified picture, and the modified picture is obtained by applying the predefined geometric operation to luma samples and chroma samples of an original picture of an input video sequence; determining, by the decoder, an inverse geometry operation corresponding to the predefined geometric operation according to the syntax element; obtaining, by the decoder, the original picture by performing the inverse geometry operation on the modified picture.
However, Andrivon from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses wherein the encoded video bitstream is obtained by an encoder encoding a modified picture, and the modified picture is obtained by applying the predefined geometric operation to luma samples and chroma samples of an original picture of an input video sequence (See Andrivon, Figs. 4 and 5A and corresponding text disclosing a conversion mode that defines a geometric operation, including flipping operation and/or rotation operation applied to the pictures components (luma and chroma components) of the original picture and further disclosing encoding the converted picture components into a bitstream of encoded video picture data) determining, by the decoder, an inverse geometry operation corresponding to the predefined geometric operation according to the syntax element (See Andrivon, Fig. 14 and corresponding text disclosing that the decoder determines a de-converting mode corresponding to the previously applied conversion mode and then applies that inverse operation after decoding) obtaining, by the decoder, the original picture by performing the inverse geometry operation on the modified picture (See Andrivon, Fig. 14 and corresponding text disclosing decoder side decoding the encoded video picture data followed by de-converting. See also ¶¶ [0113]-[0116] )
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Choi to add the teachings of Andrivon as above, in order to ensure encoding and decoding efficiency as well as low complexity. In particular, compression efficiency with encoding/decoding flexibility and adaptability (Andrivon, [0044])
Regarding claim 2, Choi and Andrivon disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses the method for video decoding of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the decoder, the inverse geometry operation corresponding to the predefined geometric operation according to the syntax element (See Choi, ¶¶[0100] – [0106] disclosing the flags dictating whether and how to resample (inverse operation))
Regarding claim 3, Choi and Andrivon disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses the method for video decoding of claim 1, wherein the syntax element is implicit and not signaled; or, wherein the syntax element is signaled at a picture or slice level (See Choi, ¶¶[0071] and [0111]-[0116] disclosing PPS level (picture level) signaling of the index and flags).
Regarding claim 14, Choi and Andrivon disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Choi discloses the method for video decoding of claim 1, wherein the predefined geometric operation comprises at least one of translation, rotation, isotropic scaling, reflection, or shear (See Choi, ¶¶[0100] – [0106] disclosing the flags dictating whether and how to resample (inverse operation); and ¶¶ [0006], [0092] and [0094] disclosing resampling by a factor (in each dimension), upward/ downward (isotropic scaling))
Regarding claim 17, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a apparatus for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Choi discloses an apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors r (See Choi, ¶[0133])
Claims 4-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Andrivon, in view of Deshpande et al. (US20210329303A1), hereinafter referred to as Deshpande.
Regarding claim 4, Choi and Andrivon disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose method for video decoding of claim 1, wherein the syntax element comprises a sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag that indicates whether chroma sample positions are horizontally shifted relative to corresponding luma sample positions.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses method for video decoding of claim 1, wherein the syntax element comprises a sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag that indicates whether chroma sample positions are horizontally shifted relative to corresponding luma sample positions (See Deshpande, ¶[0126] and [0149]) .
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Choi to add the teachings of Deshpande as above, in order to specifies the horizontal alignment of the chroma samples relative to the luma samples which is significant for properly reconstructing the color image. (Deshpande, [00149]).
Regarding claim 5, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the method for video decoding of claim 4, wherein the sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag equaling to 1 specifies that a prediction process is configured for the chroma sample positions that are not horizontally shifted relative to the corresponding luma sample positions.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method for video decoding of claim 4, wherein the sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag equaling to 1 specifies that a prediction process is configured for the chroma sample positions that are not horizontally shifted relative to the corresponding luma sample positions (See Deshpande, ¶[0149]).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 6, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the method for video decoding of claim 4, wherein the sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag equaling to 0 specifies that a prediction process is configured for the chroma sample positions that are shifted right by 0.5 in units of luma samples relative to the corresponding luma sample positions.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method for video decoding of claim 4, wherein the sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag equaling to 0 specifies that a prediction process is configured for the chroma sample positions that are shifted right by 0.5 in units of luma samples relative to the corresponding luma sample positions (See Deshpande, ¶[0149]).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 7, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the method for video decoding of claim 4, wherein the sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag equaling to 0 specifies that a prediction process is configured for the chroma sample positions that are shifted right by a predetermined number in units of luma samples relative to the corresponding luma sample positions.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method for video decoding of claim 4, wherein the sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag equaling to 0 specifies that a prediction process is configured for the chroma sample positions that are shifted right by a predetermined number in units of luma samples relative to the corresponding luma sample positions (See Deshpande, ¶[0149]).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 8, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the method for video decoding of claim 4, further comprising: in response to determining that the sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag is not present, inferring the sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag to be equal to 1.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method for video decoding of claim 4, further comprising: in response to determining that the sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag is not present, inferring the sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag to be equal to 1 (See Deshpande, ¶[0149]).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 9, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the method for video decoding of claim 1, wherein the syntax element comprises a sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag that indicates whether chroma sample positions are vertically shifted relative to corresponding luma sample positions.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method for video decoding of claim 1, wherein the syntax element comprises a sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag that indicates whether chroma sample positions are vertically shifted relative to corresponding luma sample positions (See Deshpande, ¶[0149]).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 10, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the method for video decoding of claim 9, wherein the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag equaling to 1 specifies that a prediction processes is configured for the chroma sample positions that are not vertically shifted relative to the corresponding luma sample positions.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method for video decoding of claim 9, wherein the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag equaling to 1 specifies that a prediction processes is configured for the chroma sample positions that are not vertically shifted relative to the corresponding luma sample positions (See Deshpande, ¶[0149]).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 11, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the method for video decoding of claim 9, wherein the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag equaling to 0 specifies that a prediction process is configured for the chroma sample positions that are shifted downward by 0.5 in units of luma samples relative to the corresponding luma sample positions.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method for video decoding of claim 9, wherein the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag equaling to 0 specifies that a prediction process is configured for the chroma sample positions that are shifted downward by 0.5 in units of luma samples relative to the corresponding luma sample positions (See Deshpande, ¶[0149]).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 12, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the method for video decoding of claim 9, wherein the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag equaling to 0 specifies that a prediction process is configured for the chroma sample positions that are shifted downward by a predetermined number in units of luma samples relative to the corresponding luma sample positions.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method for video decoding of claim 9, wherein the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag equaling to 0 specifies that a prediction process is configured for the chroma sample positions that are shifted downward by a predetermined number in units of luma samples relative to the corresponding luma sample positions (See Deshpande, ¶[0149]).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 13, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the method for video encoding of claim 9, further comprising: in response to determining that the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag is not present, inferring the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag to be equal to 1.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method for video encoding of claim 9, further comprising: in response to determining that the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag is not present, inferring the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag to be equal to 1 (See Deshpande, ¶¶[0149] – [00]).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 15, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 1 , and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the comparing relative locations of the luma samples and the chroma samples in the modified picture and relative locations of the luma samples and the chroma samples in the original picture to indicate correct locations of the luma samples and the chroma samples.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the comparing relative locations of the luma samples and the chroma samples in the modified picture and relative locations of the luma samples and the chroma samples in the original picture to indicate correct locations of the luma samples and the chroma samples (See Deshpande, ¶[0149] disclosing sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag and sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 16, Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande disclose all the limitations all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Choi does not explicitly disclose the method for video decoding of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining an additional syntax element that indicates correct locations of the luma samples and the chroma samples.
However, Deshpande from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method for video decoding of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining an additional syntax element that indicates correct locations of the luma samples and the chroma samples (Deshpande, ¶[0149] disclosing sps_chroma_horizontal_collocated_flag and sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag).
The motivation for combining Choi, Andrivon and Deshpande has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream to be decoded by an decoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to decode 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 computer-readable recording 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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream in claim 18 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor 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 computer-readable recording medium storing data and is anticipated by Choi which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (See Choi, ¶¶[0024]-[0027]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Jamie Atala can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights