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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 06/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112
As per the remarks in the Advisory Action mailed 06/05/2026, the remarks provided in the after final response are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections and therefore are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The first talking point is centered around the present amendment, which is an incorporation of the limitation of claim 4 into claim 1. Applicant argues that Yu discloses only one scaling factor a in the formula:
pred[i,j]=a⋅ref[k,l]+b
and therefore, does not teach or suggest the claimed plurality of scaling parameters. Applicant further argues that Yu uses only one row or column of neighboring samples and does not teach determining each scaling parameter based on samples in a plurality of rows or a plurality of columns in a reference block template.
These arguments are not persuasive because they focus on Yu’s discussion of single-model LIC while not addressing Yu’s multiple-model LIC embodiment.
Yu expressly discloses that one linear model may not accurately represent illumination changes between the reference block and the current block, and that multiple linear models may be employed to compensate for illumination changes between the reference block and the current CU. See Yu, e.g., ¶¶ 71–75. Yu further discloses that neighboring reconstructed pixels of the current block and corresponding neighboring reconstructed pixels of the reference block are classified into N groups, and each group is used as a training set to derive respective linear model parameters, including a respective scaling factor a and offset b. See Yu ¶ 72. In Yu’s exemplary two-model embodiment, two sets of parameters {a1,b1} and {a2,b2} are derived and used. See Yu ¶ 75. Thus, Yu teaches a plurality of LIC scaling parameters.
Applicant’s argument that Yu uses only one scaling factor is therefore not commensurate with the full disclosure of Yu. While Yu initially explains conventional LIC using a single scaling factor, Yu’s disclosed improvement is specifically directed to using multiple LIC models and multiple corresponding scaling factors.
Therefore, in sum Yu supplies the LIC environment, the reference/current block relationship, and the plurality of LIC scaling factors. Panusopone supplies the known prediction technique of deriving a predicted pixel by summing weighted products. A POSITA would have applied Panusopone’s weighted-summation prediction structure to Yu’s multiple LIC scaling factors to combine multiple compensated reference-pixel contributions rather than selecting only one LIC model.
For those reasons and any clarifying adjustments to the mappings below, the rejections to the remaining claims are to be maintained.
Secondly, as similar features are recited in claims 14 and 20, they are maintained for reasons same or similar to the above.
Finally, the rejections of the dependent claims are also maintained by virtue of their dependencies.
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); and
wherein each scaling parameter of the plurality of scaling parameters is obtained based on samples in a plurality of rows or a plurality of columns in a reference block template (FIGS. 7A-7B; Paragraphs [0070] and [0072]-[0075] discloses deriving LIC parameters from neighboring reconstructed pixels of the current block and corresponding neighboring reconstructed pixels of the reference block. Yu’s example uses a neighboring reference-block row and a neighboring reference-block column; under a broad reasonable interpretation, the row includes samples across a plurality of columns and the column includes samples across a plurality of rows.).
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 each scaling parameter of the plurality of scaling parameters is 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) and
wherein each scaling parameter of the plurality of scaling parameters is obtained based on samples in a plurality of rows or a plurality of columns in a reference block template (FIGS. 7A-7B; Paragraphs [0070] and [0072]-[0075] discloses deriving LIC parameters from neighboring reconstructed pixels of the current block and corresponding neighboring reconstructed pixels of the reference block. Yu’s example uses a neighboring reference-block row and a neighboring reference-block column; under a broad reasonable interpretation, the row includes samples across a plurality of columns and the column includes samples across a plurality of rows.).
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 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) and
wherein each scaling parameter of the plurality of scaling parameters is obtained based on samples in a plurality of rows or a plurality of columns in a reference block template (FIGS. 7A-7B; Paragraphs [0070] and [0072]-[0075] discloses deriving LIC parameters from neighboring reconstructed pixels of the current block and corresponding neighboring reconstructed pixels of the reference block. Yu’s example uses a neighboring reference-block row and a neighboring reference-block column; under a broad reasonable interpretation, the row includes samples across a plurality of columns and the column includes samples across a plurality of rows.).
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
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
Prosecution Insights