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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 17-21 and 23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites the limitation phrase “wherein the compensation parameter is obtained only when a coding mode of the current block is a pre-defined intra prediction mode.” The aforementioned limitation is inconsistent with Claim 16 (a claim from which claim 17 depends). Claim 16 recites “determining a compensation parameter for the current block” as a required step. By introducing the phrase “the compensation parameter is obtained only when,” Claim 17 suggests that under certain conditions, the compensation parameter is not obtained and the required step in claim 16 is not performed. MPEP 2173.05(f) states: “A claim which makes reference to a preceding claim to define a limitation is an acceptable claim construction (…) However, where the format of making reference to limitations recited in another claim results in confusion, then a rejection would be proper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”
Regarding claims 18-21, these claims are, either directly or indirectly, dependent from a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. Claims 18-21 do not remedy this deficiency and therefore inherit the rejection of the parent claim.
Regarding claim 23, this claim recites the limitation phrases “A device for transmitting compressed video data,” and “a processor configured to obtain the compressed video data.” Yet, the claim subsequently recites “wherein obtaining the compressed video data” comprising the steps of “generating a prediction block, ”” determining a compensation parameter,” and “applying the compensation parameter.”
The term “obtaining” typically suggests acquiring, retrieving or receiving data that already exist. However, the phrase “wherein obtaining the compressed video data,” defines “obtaining” as “generating”, in this case, compressed video data (encoding). Therefore, it is unclear whether the claimed device is a transmitter, which receives encoded data, or an encoder, which generates video data.
For the purpose of applying art, the Examiner interprets “obtain” to mean “generate."
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.
Claims 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (“Algorithm Description of Joint Exploration Test Model 2 “ Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 2nd Meeting: San Diego, USA, 20–26 February 2016 Document: JVET-B1001_v3), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses method of decoding a video, the method comprising:
generating a prediction block of a current block in the video by using a reference block corresponding to the current block (Section 2.4.1 and 2.4.5 discloses generating prediction blocks (PUs) using motion compensation from reference blocks (inter mode) );
determining a compensation parameter for the current block and applying the compensation parameter to the prediction block of the current block (Section 2.4.5 discloses determining compensation parameters (scaling factor a and an offset b) and applies them to the prediction block);
wherein the compensation parameter includes at least one of a weight and an offset (Section 2.4.5 discloses compensation parameters (scaling factor a and an offset b)), and
wherein the compensation parameter is derived using a first template region adjacent to the current block and a second template region adjacent to the reference block (Section 2.4.5 recites “a least square error method is employed to derive the parameters a and b by using the neighbouring samples of the current CU and their corresponding reference samples;” and “Figure 1: Neighbouring samples used for deriving IC parameters” depicting L -shape template adjacent to current CU and reference block, wherein “the neighbouring samples of the current CU” match to the “first template region” and “corresponding reference samples”( pixels adjacent to the reference block, shown in FIG. 11) match the “second template region”).
Regarding claim 22, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of decoding of claim 16, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a method of encoding for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: a encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from 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 17-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Xiu et al. (US20160360210A1), hereinafter referred to as Xiu.
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose method of claim 16, wherein the compensation parameter is obtained only when a coding mode of the current block is a pre-defined intra prediction mode.
However, Xiu from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses method of claim 16, wherein the compensation parameter is obtained only when a coding mode of the current block is a pre-defined intra prediction mode (¶¶ [0065]-[0066] discloses parameters associated with weighted prediction may be signaled in a slice header (e.g., different slices in a given picture may use different weights and offsets to generate reference blocks for temporal prediction). For an intra block copy (IBC) coded CU).
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 Chen to add the teachings of Xiu as above, in order to use weighted prediction (WP) to code video sequences with illumination variations such as fade-in, fade-out, cross-fade, dissolve, flashes, etc. These illumination changes may occur locally (e.g., within a region of a picture ) or globally (e.g., within the entire picture). (Xiu, [0065]).
Regarding claim 18, Chen and Xiu disclose all the limitations of claim 17, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 17, wherein a position of the second template region is adaptively determined according to the pre-defined intra prediction mode.
However, Xiu from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 17, wherein a position of the second template region is adaptively determined according to the pre-defined intra prediction mode (¶ [0035] discless A block vector (BV) locates a reference block for the current CU. The second template region (neighbors of reference block discloses by Chen) is inherently adaptively determined by the block vector according to the IBC).
The motivation for combining Chen and Xiu has been discussed in connection with claim 17, above.
Regarding claim 19, Chen and Xiu disclose all the limitations of claim 18, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 18, wherein when a non-available sample is included in the second template region, a replacement value is assigned to the non-available sample.
However, Xiu from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 18, wherein when a non-available sample is included in the second template region, a replacement value is assigned to the non-available sample (¶[0045] discloses that a reference sample may not be available if the reference sample belongs to another slice/tile or has not been decoded. In those situations, padded samples from the current slice/tile or decoded region may be used).
The motivation for combining Chen and Xiu has been discussed in connection with claim 17, above.
Regarding claim 20, Chen and Xiu disclose all the limitations of claim 19, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 19, wherein the replacement value for the non-available sample is determined based on an available sample outside the second template region.
However, Xiu from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the replacement value for the non-available sample is determined based on an available sample outside the second template region. (¶[0045] discloses padded samples from the current slice/tile or decoded region may be used).
The motivation for combining Chen and Xiu has been discussed in connection with claim 17, above.
Regarding claim 21, Chen and Xiu disclose all the limitations of claim 20, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Chen does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 20, wherein the replacement value for the non-available sample is determined based on an available sample belonging to the reference block among samples outside the second template region.
However, Xiu from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 20, wherein the replacement value for the non-available sample is determined based on an available sample belonging to the reference block among samples outside the second template region (¶ [0045] and Fig. 5C discloses that an integer samples P0 may be across the slice boundary 550 and thus unavailable and that the values of integer samples P1 may be replicated to the integer samples P0).
The motivation for combining Chen and Xiu has been discussed in connection with claim 17, above.
Regarding claim 23, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of decoding of claim 16, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a device for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Chen does not explicitly disclose device for transmitting compressed video data, comprising: a processor configured to obtain the compressed video data; and a transmitter configured to transmit the compressed video data.
However, Xiu from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the device for transmitting compressed video data, comprising: a processor configured to obtain the compressed video data (¶¶[0023] and [0104]); and
a transmitter configured to transmit the compressed video data (¶¶[0072] and [0092]).
The motivation for combining Chen and Xiu has been discussed in connection with claim 17, above.
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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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