DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 10/22/2024, where Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. It is recommended that the title more explicitly link “Adaptive Template Expansion” to refined intra prediction mode coding of video.
The following title is merely an example: “Adaptive Template Expansion for Refined Intra Prediction Mode Video Coding” or something equivalent, to more clearly show the purpose of the adaptive template expansion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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 9-10 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.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is larger than a horizontal angle” and “when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is less than the horizontal angle” (emphasis added). In the context of a template positioned at the left side of the current block, it is understood the template expansion of N samples will either be from the top-left or bottom-left corners of the current block depending on whether the angle is larger or smaller than the horizontal angle, i.e. intra prediction mode index 18 (fig. 8). However, an angle that is larger than or less than the horizontal angle includes all angles confined to the upper and lower quadrants of the figure, respectively. If the angle, for example, lies in the upper right quadrant (index = 60), which is also larger than the horizontal angle, then it is not clear how the left-hand template of N samples will be expanded from the top-left corner. If understood correctly, it is believed that for the expansion of N samples to be from a top left corner of the current block, the angles would have to be constrained to the upper left quadrant of the figure. However, as claimed, this is not entirely clear. The same also applies to the subsequent limitation “when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is less than the horizontal angle”. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites similar limitation as claim 9 above, except rather than expanding the template of N samples in one direction or another, the template is offset by N samples in both directions depending on whether the angle is larger or smaller than the horizontal angle. Thus, for the same reasons presented, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1-8 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippov et al. US 2023/0217016 A1, in view of Li et al. US 2022/0345692 A1, in further view of Dumas et al. WO 2024/213520 A1 (with reference to Priority data EP 23305549.0), hereinafter referred to as Filippov, Li, and Dumas, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Filippov teaches and/or suggest “A method of video decoding [See figs. 1 and 3 with respect to decoder 120 and 300, respectively], comprising: receiving a bitstream including coded information of a current block and a template of the current block in a current picture [Refer to for e.g. ¶0147 and ¶0175 which describes receiving the TIMD flag in the bitstream, indicating whether TIMD is applied or not. If applied, TIMD related information must be present to perform TIMD. For more explicit support, see Li below], the template including neighboring samples of the current block [See left template 1704A and top template 1704B containing neighboring samples of current block 1702 (fig. 17). Also note fig. 18 and associated text]; determining at least one of a size of the template and an offset of the template [See ¶0138 regarding an adjustable template size, i.e. the template can be adjusted accordingly. For e.g., increasing/decreasing the length] according to an angle indicated by an initial intra prediction mode of the current block [See fig. 25 of Filippov, where length adjustments of a second template can be determined (2508). However, these appear to be based on a position of a current block relative to a CTU boundary between two CTUs. As such, see Dumas below for corresponding support]; determining a refined intra prediction mode for the current block based on a template prediction of the template and a template reconstruction of the template [See for e.g. fig. 25 of Filippov, where a ‘refined’ intra prediction mode can be construed as the mode selected in 2512 for example following the length adjustment in the second template]; and reconstructing the current block based on the refined intra prediction mode.” [The selected intra prediction mode can be used by decoder 300 of fig. 3 to reconstruct the current block] Although Filippov’s teachings are deemed relevant, Filippov does not explicitly show “receiving a bitstream including coded information of a current block and a template of the current block in a current picture”. For support, the work of Li from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest the foregoing. [See abstract, i.e. receiving coded information of a CU, a template region, and a set of reference regions from a coded video bitstream] Given Li’s teachings above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Filippov for boundary-based template refinement (e.g. abstract), to add the teachings of Li as above for providing improvements to template matching based intra prediction for video coding (e.g. ¶0109). Further, although Filippov’s teachings are deemed relevant as they address adjustable template sizes via TIMD algorithms, the adjustments do not appear to be “according to an angle indicated by an initial intra prediction mode of the current block” as claimed. Rather they are based on a position of a current block relative to a CTU boundary between two CTUs (e.g. fig. 18). Thus Filippov, and also Li, do not address this feature. For this reason, the work of Dumas from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “determining at least one of a size of the template and an offset of the template according to an angle indicated by an initial intra prediction mode of the current block” [Recognizing the limitation “determining at least one of…”, Dumas shows sets of reference samples in a template region can be extended when needed, depending on the intra prediction mode that is being tested (see pg. 24 lines 9-16), here construed as an initial intra prediction mode. Also refer to claim 7 of Dumas, i.e. depending on the first intra prediction mode] Given Dumas’s teachings for employing TIMD in video coding (e.g. abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Filippov for performing video compression based on boundary-based template refinement (e.g. abstract) and Li’s template matching based intra prediction (abstract), to add the teachings of Dumas as above which introduce a means for adapting TIMD during the derivation step so as to remove the hole between the template and its reference samples, thus improving template prediction (e.g. pg. 20 lines 30-36 and pg. 21 line 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Filippov, Li, and Dumas teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Filippov further teaches/suggests “wherein: the neighboring samples of the template are positioned at a top side of the current block [See figs. 17, 18, and 22 and associated text]; and the determining further comprises: when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is larger than a vertical angle, determining that the template includes N samples expanded from a top right corner of the current block in a first horizontal direction.” [Filippov (or Li) however does not address the foregoing. Please refer to Dumas below for corresponding support] Given Filippov (or Li) does not address the aforementioned features, Dumas from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “and the determining further comprises: when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is larger than a vertical angle, determining that the template includes N samples expanded from a top right corner of the current block in a first horizontal direction.” [See pgs. 23-24 with respect to adapting/extending templates based on the evolution of TIMD, where testing adds wide angle intra prediction modes (fig. 4B). If the intra prediction mode index > 50, the angles/directions shown indicate the top template needs to be extended to the right, i.e. a 1st horizontal direction. Also see claims 7-9 in Dumas] The motivation for combining Filippov, Li, and Dumas has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Filippov, Li, and Dumas teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Filippov further teaches/suggests “wherein: the neighboring samples of the template are positioned at a top side of the current block [See figs. 17, 18, and 22 and associated text]; and the determining further comprises: when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is less than a vertical angle, determining that the template includes N samples expanded from a top left corner of the current block in a second horizontal direction.” [Filippov (or Li) however does not address the foregoing. Please refer to Dumas below for corresponding support] Given Filippov (or Li) does not address the aforementioned features, Dumas from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “and the determining further comprises: when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is less than a vertical angle, determining that the template includes N samples expanded from a top left corner of the current block in a second horizontal direction.” [Same as claim 2, except if the intra prediction mode index < 50, the angles/directions shown indicate the top template needs to be extended to the left, i.e. a 2nd horizontal direction.] The motivation for combining Filippov, Li, and Dumas has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 4, Filippov, Li, and Dumas teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Filippov and Li however do not address the features of claim 4. Thus, Dumas from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the N is equal to a product of M and tan (hor/ver), the M being a constant, hor being a horizontal component of a vector in a direction of the angle, and ver being a vertical component of the vector in the direction of the angle.” [Although not explicitly defined as claimed, Dumas (figs. 5A-5B) does illustrate mode index 66 (i.e. θ = 45 degrees), meaning tan θ = 1. Hence, the no. of extended samples equals M which is taken to be the width of the CB as per ¶0083 of specification. The figures show an extended template equal to the width of the current block for mode index 66.] The motivation for combining Filippov, Li, and Dumas has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Filippov, Li, and Dumas teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Fillipov further teaches/suggests “wherein: the neighboring samples of the template are positioned at a top side of the current block [See figs. 17-18 with respect to the templates shown]; and the determining further comprises: when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is larger than a vertical angle, determining that the template is offset by N samples in a right direction relative to the current block.” [Filippov (or Li) however does not address these features. See Dumas below for support] Since Filippov (or Li) does not address the above features, i.e. “and the determining…”, Dumas from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “and the determining further comprises: when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is larger than a vertical angle, determining that the template is offset by N samples in a right direction relative to the current block.” [See pgs. 23-24 with respect to adapting/extending templates based on the evolution of TIMD, where testing adds wide angle intra prediction modes (fig. 4B). If the intra prediction mode index > 50, the angles/directions shown indicate the top template needs to be extended/moved (here construed as an offset) to the right. For e.g., ‘iTw’ in ‘Width + iTw’ (fig. 7A) can be considered an offset] The motivation for combining Filippov, Li, and Dumas has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Filippov, Li, and Dumas teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Fillipov further teaches/suggests “wherein: the neighboring samples of the template are positioned at a top side of the current block [See figs. 17-18 with respect to the templates shown]; and the determining further comprises: when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is less than a vertical angle, determining that the template is offset by N samples in a left direction relative to the current block.” [Filippov (or Li) however does not address these features. See Dumas below for support] Since Filippov (or Li) does not address the above features, i.e. “and the determining…”, Dumas from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “and the determining further comprises: when the angle indicated by the initial intra prediction mode is less than a vertical angle, determining that the template is offset by N samples in a left direction relative to the current block.” [Same as claim 5, except if the intra prediction mode index < 50, the angles/directions shown indicate the top template needs to be extended/moved (i.e. construed as an offset) to the left] The motivation for combining Filippov, Li, and Dumas has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Filippov, Li, and Dumas teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Filippov and Li do not address the features of claim 7. Thus, Dumas from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the N is equal to a product of M and tan (hor/ver), the M being a constant, hor being a horizontal component of a vector in a direction of the angle, and ver being a vertical component of the vector in the direction of the angle.” [Dumas (figs. 5A-5B) illustrates mode index 66 (i.e. θ = 45 degrees), meaning tan θ = 1. Hence, the no. of extended samples = M which is taken to mean the width of the CB as per ¶0083 of specification. For e.g., the figures show an extended template equal to the width of the current block for mode index 66.] The motivation for combining Filippov, Li, and Dumas has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 8, Filippov, Li, and Dumas teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Filippov further teaches/suggests “wherein the N is based on at least one of a block size, a block shape, and the coded information of the current block.” [Based on different block sizes, the top and left templates may have different lengths (e.g. ¶0142)] Although Filippov is deemed relevant given the BRI of the limitation, whereas Li is not, Dumas from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned features. [See for e.g. pg. 24 lines 24-30. Also please note fig. 7A-7B] The motivation for combining Filippov, Li, and Dumas has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 11, Filippov, Li, and Dumas teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However, Filippov and Li do not appear to address the features of claim 11. Dumas on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “further comprising: applying each of a plurality of candidate intra prediction modes to the template to generate a respective candidate template prediction of the template [See fig. 19 regarding determining a set of intra prediction modes to be evaluated and determining a set of reference samples for each part of the template that can be used to determine a prediction P]; and determining a cost value between each of the candidate template predictions and the template reconstruction of the template [Fig. 19 discloses determining cost values for each prediction mode index i], wherein: the determining the refined intra prediction mode includes determining the refined intra prediction mode from the plurality of candidate intra prediction modes that corresponds to a least cost value among the cost values between the candidate template predictions and the template reconstruction of the template. [Fig. 19 further discloses determining the intra prediction mode indices associated with the two smallest costs] The motivation for combining Filippov, Li, and Dumas has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1 since encoding and decoding are inverse coding operations which enable compressed video data to be decompressed and reconstructed at a destination device.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 6.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 7.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights