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 Amendment
In the response filed 01/26/2026, applicant amended claims 1, 14 and 20. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
The examiner thanks the applicant for their attention to this matter and due to amendment, the claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14 and 20 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.
As will be discussed in the rejections below, Panusopone et al., discusses summation of multiplied scaling factors to reference pixels.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
The proposed amendments appear to constitute new matter. After a cursory search of the specification, the examiner fails to specifically locate a particular correspondence to a summation as laid out in the claims. Further, as reproduced below, it does not appear that paragraphs [0083] or [0231] as alleged by applicant do so either:
PNG
media_image1.png
110
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
252
674
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the applicant is asked to specifically point out in more detail exactly where this feature is disclosed or amend the claims accordingly.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al., (U.S. Patent No. 10,834,409 B2) referred to as YU hereinafter in view of Panusopone et al., (U.S. Patent No. 11,019,353 B2) referred to as PANUSOPONE hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, YU shows a method for video decoding (Fig. 9; Column 12, lines 51+), comprising:
obtaining, by a decoder, a plurality of scaling parameters for Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) (Colum 12, lines 54-64 obtain a bitstream that, if LIC is enabled, will contain LIC scaling factors.) that represents scaling factors in compensating illumination changes between a reference block and a current block (Figs. 7a-7b; Column 10, lines 13-30).
However, YU fails to but PANUSOPONE does specifically derive, by the decoder, a predicted pixel in the current block based on a summation of a plurality of products, each product being obtained by multiplying a pixel in the reference block by a respective scaling parameter in a subset of the plurality of scaling parameters (Claim 6, calculating the two predictors adequately describes scaling multipliers, summations and reference blocks.).
Both YU and PANUSOPONE are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they deal with LIC in video compression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YU in the spirit of PANUSOPONE because it allows the computations to be made more accurate by deriving a value for a bottom right neighboring pixel (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, YU shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the plurality of pixels in the reference block comprise a collocated pixel and a plurality of neighboring pixels of the collocated pixel (See Figs. 7a-7b along with the corresponding disclosure within column 10.).
Regarding claim 4, YU shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the plurality of scaling parameters are obtained based on samples in a plurality of rows or a plurality of columns in a reference block template (See Figs. 7a-7b along with the corresponding disclosure within column 10 wherein the neighboring factors are either in a row or column.).
Regarding claim 5, YU shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein each one of the pluralities of scaling parameters represents a scaling factor for a pixel at a different position, and the predicted pixel is derived based on a selected one of the plurality of scaling parameters (See Figs. 7a-7b along with the corresponding disclosure within column 10 wherein the neighboring factors represent a specific factor for a pixel at a specific position).
Regarding claim 6, YU shows the limitations of claim 5 as applied above, and further shows wherein the selected one of the pluralities of scaling parameters is determined based on a position of the predicted pixel (Column 11, lines 45-60 discloses equations and discussions surrounding what exactly is required to determine a predicted pixel, including a position [x,y].).
Regarding claim 7, YU shows the limitations of claim 5 as applied above, and further shows wherein the plurality of scaling parameters comprise a first scaling parameter for deriving a first predicted pixel, and a second scaling parameter for deriving a second predicted pixel (Column 11, the equations on lines 53-57 represent two predictions.).
Regarding claim 8, YU shows the limitations of claim 7 as applied above, and further shows wherein the selected one of the plurality of scaling parameters is obtained by two sub-parameters corresponding to a horizontal position and a vertical position of the predicted pixel (Column 11, lines 45-60 discloses equations and discussions surrounding what exactly is required to determine a predicted pixel, including a position [x,y], which is commonly known as cartesian coordinates representing a vertical and horizontal position.).
Regarding claim 9, YU shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows obtaining, by the decoder, an offset parameter for LIC that represents an offset factor in compensating illumination changes between the reference block and the current block (Column 10, lines 15-30 disclose an offset value for the above purposes.).
Regarding claim 10, YU shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows obtaining, by the decoder, a plurality of offset parameters for LIC that represents offset factors in compensating illumination changes between the reference block and the current block, each of the plurality of offset parameters representing an offset factor for a pixel at a different position (Column 11, lines 45-60 discloses equations and discussions surrounding what exactly is required to determine a predicted pixel, including a position [x,y], and a corresponding offset value, b.).
Regarding claim 11, YU shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows obtaining, by the decoder, one or more offset parameters for LIC that represent offset factors in compensating illumination changes between the reference block and the current block; and obtaining, by the decoder, a predicted illumination value of a pixel in the current block from one or more pixels in the reference block using one or more of the scaling parameters and one or more of the offset parameters (Column 11, lines 15-60 discloses all of the above, including offsets, predicted pixel values coming from reference blocks and scaling parameters.).
Regarding claim 12, YU shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows obtaining, by the decoder, a flag indicating that LIC is used for the current block and an index indicating a type of LIC that is used for the current block (Column 12, lines 40-50 clearly teach this 'MMLIC'.).
Regarding claim 13, YU shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows obtaining, by the decoder, a flag indicating that LIC is used for the current block; and deriving, by the decoder, a type of LIC that is used for the current block (Column 12, lines 40-50 clearly teach this in so far as deriving that an MMLIC is to be used.).
Regarding claim 14, YU shows an apparatus, comprising:
one or more processors (FIG. 10, 1007); and
a memory coupled to the one or more processors (FIG. 10, 1008) and configured to store instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors, upon execution of the instructions, are configured to perform operations comprising (This is an inherent operating procedure between memory and processor in computing.):
obtaining a plurality of scaling parameters for Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) (Colum 12, lines 54-64 obtain a bitstream that, if LIC is enabled, will contain LIC scaling factors.) that represents scaling factors in compensating illumination changes between a reference block and a current block (Figs. 7a-7b; Column 10, lines 13-30).
However, YU fails to but PANUSOPONE does specifically derive, by the decoder, a predicted pixel in the current block based on a summation of a plurality of products, each product being obtained by multiplying a pixel in the reference block by a respective scaling parameter in a subset of the plurality of scaling parameters (Claim 6, calculating the two predictors adequately describes scaling multipliers, summations and reference blocks.).
Both YU and PANUSOPONE are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they deal with LIC in video compression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YU in the spirit of PANUSOPONE because it allows the computations to be made more accurate by deriving a value for a bottom right neighboring pixel (Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, YU shows the limitations of claim 14 as applied above, and further shows wherein the plurality of pixels in the reference block comprise a collocated pixel and a plurality of neighboring pixels of the collocated pixel (See Figs. 7a-7b along with the corresponding disclosure within column 10.).
Regarding claim 17, YU shows the limitations of claim 14 as applied above, and further shows wherein the plurality of scaling parameters are obtained based on samples in a plurality of rows or a plurality of columns in a reference block template (See Figs. 7a-7b along with the corresponding disclosure within column 10 wherein the neighboring factors are either in a row or column.).
Regarding claim 18, YU shows the limitations of claim 14 as applied above, and further shows wherein each one of the pluralities of scaling parameters represents a scaling factor for a pixel at a different position, and the predicted pixel is derived based on a selected one of the plurality of scaling parameters (See Figs. 7a-7b along with the corresponding disclosure within column 10 wherein the neighboring factors represent a specific factor for a pixel at a specific position).
Regarding claim 19, YU shows the limitations of claim 18 as applied above, and further shows wherein the selected one of the pluralities of scaling parameters is determined based on a position of the predicted pixel (Column 11, lines 45-60 discloses equations and discussions surrounding what exactly is required to determine a predicted pixel, including a position [x,y].).
Regarding claim 20, YU shows a method for storing a bitstream (Fig. 9; Column 12, lines 51+), comprising:
obtaining a plurality of scaling parameters for Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) (Colum 12, lines 54-64 obtain a bitstream that, if LIC is enabled, will contain LIC scaling factors.) that represents scaling factors in compensating illumination changes between a reference block and a current block (Figs. 7a-7b; Column 10, lines 13-30); and
storing the bitstream (col. 13, lines 40-43).
However, YU fails to but PANUSOPONE does specifically derive a predicted pixel in the current block based on a summation of a plurality of products, each product being obtained by multiplying a pixel in the reference block by a respective scaling parameter in a subset of the plurality of scaling parameters (Claim 6, calculating the two predictors adequately describes scaling multipliers, summations and reference blocks.).
Both YU and PANUSOPONE are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they deal with LIC in video compression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YU in the spirit of PANUSOPONE because it allows the computations to be made more accurate by deriving a value for a bottom right neighboring pixel (Abstract).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YU in view of PANUSOPONE and in further view of Li et al., (US 20180316929 A1) referred to as LI hereinafter.
Regarding claims 3 and 6, YU, in view of PANUSOPONE shows the limitations of claims 2 and 15, respectively however failing to specifically point out where a predefined filtering window is used to derive a predicted pixel. However, in an analogous art, LI discloses using gradient [filtering] windows to aid in predicting pixel values (Paragraph [0165] discloses equivalent techniques using gradient analysis for refining the prediction process.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify YU, in view of PANUSOPONE in the spirit of LI so as to intensify gradient values in the neighboring region, rendering a more accurate depiction of a block. Such techniques as Sobol Operators and the like are well-known techniques for doing so and have a high level of predictable results and repeatability.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 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 J 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486