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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 13 March 2025, 24 June 2025, and 16 October 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims recite limitations which were optional in the claims from which they depend. The claims require either a LIC flag and model parameters or NLIC flag and model parameters. In the case where LIC flag and model parameters are utilized in the independent claims, the rejected claims utilize NLIC flag and model parameters which may not be required. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-9, 11-13, 18-19, 21-4, 26-28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2021/0235109 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, 21, 22, 26, and 30, Liu discloses a device for performing a method of encoding/decoding video data, the method comprising: determining to decode a current block of the video data using motion information of a second block of the video data; determining a value of a local illumination compensation (LIC) flag [Liu: ¶ [0354]: f. In one example, if an inner block is coded with merge or affine merge mode, for spatial or/and temporal merge candidate, both LIC flag and LIC parameters are inherited from the corresponding neighboring block] or a non- local illumination compensation (NLIC) flag of the second block, the value of the LIC flag or the NLIC flag of the second block indicative of LIC or NLIC being applied to the second block [Liu: ¶ [0355]: i. Alternatively, the LIC flag is inherited and the LIC parameter may be signaled explicitly]; determining, based on the value of the LIC flag or the NLIC flag, to apply LIC or NLIC to the current block [Liu: ¶ 0359]: g. In one example, for boundary block coded with AMVP mode or affine inter mode, if LIC flag is true, the used LIC parameter is derived implicitly using same methods as in 2.2.7.]; inferring LIC model parameters or NLIC model parameters of the current block to be equal to LIC model parameters or NLIC model parameters of the second block [Liu: ¶ [0409]: i. In one example, whether to signal CIIP information may depend on the signaled/inferred LIC information]; and decoding the current block including using the inferred LIC model parameters or the inferred NLIC model parameters and the motion information of the second block [Liu: ¶ [0389]: g. For any one of the above mentioned tools (e.g., CIIP, LIC, diffusion filter, bilateral filter, transform domain filtering method), whether to automatically disable it and/or use different ways for decoding the current block may depend on the coded modes of the neighboring or non-adjacent row or columns]; further comprising a camera configured to capture the video data [Liu: ¶ [0004]: camera]; and a display configured to display the decoded video data [Liu: ¶ [0516]; and FIG. 40A].
Regarding Claims 2, 12, 23, and 27, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, 11, 22 and 26, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein decoding the current block comprises using the motion information of the second block for one of an inter prediction mode, an intra block copy mode, an intra template matching mode, or a geometric mode [Liu: ¶ [0354]: merge mode; a type of inter prediction mode].
Regarding Claims 3, 13, 24, and 28, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, 11, 22 and 26, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the second block is a neighboring block, a non- adjacent block, or a temporal block in a spatio-temporal causal neighborhood, of the current block [Liu: ¶ [0354]: spatial or/and temporal merge candidate; ¶ [0078]-[0079]].
Regarding Claims 8 and 18, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, and 11, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Liu discloses further comprising storing the LIC model parameters or NLIC model parameters in memory for use with subsequent blocks of the video data [Liu: ¶ [0512]: the computer system 2600 includes one or more processors 2605 and memory 2610 connected via an interconnect 2625; and ¶ [0354]].
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Liu discloses all the limitations of Claims 1, and 11, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the method further comprising: determining that at least one partition of a geometric mode (GEO) block is inter predicted; and based on at least one partition of the GEO block being inter predicted, storing a LIC flag value and LIC model parameters of one of the at least one partition of the GEO block in memory [Liu: ¶ [0478] 14. It is proposed that only one LIC flag may be signaled for a block with geometry portioning structure (such as triangular prediction mode). In this case, all partitions of the block (all PUs) share the same value of LIC enabling flag. [0479] a. Alternatively, for some PU, the LIC may be always disabled regardless the signaled LIC flag. [0480] b. In one example, if the block is split from the top-right corner to the bottom-left corner, one set of LIC parameters is derived and used for both PUs. [0481] i. Alternatively, LIC is always disabled for the bottom PU. [0482] ii. Alternatively, if the top PU is coded in merge mode, LIC flag is not signaled. [0483] c. In one example, if the block is split from the top-left corner to the bottom-right corner, LIC parameters are derived for each PU. [0484] i. In one example, above neighboring samples of the block are used for deriving LIC parameters of the top PU and left neighboring sample of the block are used for deriving LIC parameters of the left PU. [0485] ii. Alternatively, one set of LIC parameters is derived and used for both PUs. [0486] d. In one example, if both PUs are code in merge mode, LIC flag is not signaled and may be inherited from merge candidates. LIC parameters may be derived or inherited. [0487] e. In one example, if one PU is coded in AMVP mode and another PU is coded in merge mode, the signaled LIC flag may be applied to PU coded in AMVP mode only. For PU coded in merge mode, LIC flag or/and LIC parameters are inherited. [0488] i. Alternatively, LIC flag is not signaled and is disabled for the PU coded in AMVP mode. While, for PU coded in merge mode, LIC flag or/and LIC parameters are inherited. [0489] ii. Alternatively, LIC is disabled for the PU coded in merge mode. [0490] f. Alternatively, if both PUs are coded in AMVP mode, one LIC flag may be signaled for each PU. [0491] g. In one example, one PU may utilize reconstructed samples from another PU within current block which has been reconstructed to derive LIC parameter].
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) 4-5 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Xiu et al. (JVET-AF0191_r1).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Liu disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Liu may not explicitly disclose wherein decoding the current block using the inferred LIC model parameters or the inferred NLIC model parameters and the motion information of the second block comprises performing a model competition process between the LIC model parameters and the NLIC model parameters.
However, Xiu discloses wherein decoding the current block using the inferred LIC model parameters or the inferred NLIC model parameters and the motion information of the second block comprises performing a model competition process between the LIC model parameters and the NLIC model parameters [Xiu: §2: for both regular and subblock merge modes, up to 6 NL-IC candidates which are obtained from spatial adjacent and non-adjacent neighbors to current CU are inserted and reordered together with the existing candidates in the merge list. The first N candidates with the smallest SADs remain in the list with one index being signaled to indicate which candidate is selected].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of Liu with the candidate selection of Xiu in order to provide a best option, improving overall output.
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, Liu in view of Xiu disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 4 and 14, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Liu and Xiu discloses wherein performing the model competition process comprises: determining a template matching cost associated with applying LIC to a reference template block; determining a template matching cost associated with applying NLIC to the reference template block; and determining that the template matching cost associated with applying LIC is lower than the template matching cost associated with applying NLIC [Xiu: §2].
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Xiu as applied to claim 5 -15 above, and further in view of Zhang eta l. (JVET-AF0128-v2).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Liu in view of Xiu disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 5 and 15, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Liu in view of Xiu may not explicitly disclose wherein decoding the current block using the inferred LIC model parameters or the inferred NLIC model parameters and the motion information of the second block further comprises: determining a template matching cost associated with not applying LIC to the reference template block; and determining that the template matching cost associated with applying LIC to the reference template block is less than the template matching cost associated with not applying LIC to the reference template block.
However, Zhang discloses wherein decoding the current block using the inferred LIC model parameters or the inferred NLIC model parameters and the motion information of the second block further comprises: determining a template matching cost associated with not applying LIC to the reference template block [Zhang: Abstract: In ECM, the LIC flag is inherited for a merge candidate. It is proposed to derive the LIC flag of a merge candidate based on template costs in EE2-3.2. A SAD-based template cost, denoted as C0, and a Mean Removal SAD (MRSAD)-based template cost, denoted as C1, are calculated. The LIC flag is set to be false, if C0 <= C1 and is set to be true, if C0 > C1]; and determining that the template matching cost associated with applying LIC to the reference template block is less than the template matching cost associated with not applying LIC to the reference template block [Zhang: §2: The LIC flag of a merge candidate is derived by comparing two template costs: a SAD-based template cost, denoted as C0, and a Mean Removal SAD (MRSAD)-based template cost, denoted as C1. The LIC flag is set to be false, if C0 <= C1 and is set to be true, if C0 > C1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of Liu and Xie with the decision making by Zhang in order to reduce computational cost.
Regarding Claims 7 and 17, Liu disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 11, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the current block is a first current block, the method further comprising: determining to decode a second current block of the video data using motion information of a third block of the video data [Liu: ¶ [0062]: 2.1. Inter Prediction in HEVC/H.265] determining to decode a second current block of the video data using motion information of a third block of the video data [Liu: ¶ [0063]: Each inter-predicted PU has motion parameters for one or two reference picture lists. Motion parameters include a motion vector and a reference picture index]; determining a value of a LIC flag of the third block, the value of the LIC flag of the third block indicative of LIC being applied to the third block [Liu: ¶[0137]: When a CU is coded with merge mode, the LIC flag is copied from neighboring blocks, in a way similar to motion information copy in merge mode; otherwise, an LIC flag is signalled for the CU to indicate whether LIC applies or not].
Liu may not explicitly disclose wherein the current block is a first current block, the method further comprising: determining that LIC model parameters of the third block are trivial; setting, based on the LIC model parameters of the third block being trivial, a LIC flag of the second current block to a value indicative of LIC not being applied to the second current block; and decoding the second current block using the motion information of the third block without applying LIC.
However, Zhang discloses determining that LIC model parameters of the third block are trivial; setting, based on the LIC model parameters of the third block being trivial [wherein trivial may be determined by a specific value meeting or not meeting a threshold], a LIC flag of the second current block to a value indicative of LIC not being applied to the second current block; and decoding the second current block using the motion information of the third block without applying LIC [Zhang: §2: The LIC flag of a merge candidate is derived by comparing two template costs: a SAD-based template cost, denoted as C0, and a Mean Removal SAD (MRSAD)-based template cost, denoted as C1. The LIC flag is set to be false, if C0 <= C1 and is set to be true, if C0 > C1].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of Liu with the decision making by Zhang in order to reduce computational cost.
Claim(s) 10, 20, 25, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claims 1, 11, 22, and 26 above, and further in view of Chubach et al. (US 2024/0414366 A1).
Regarding Claims 10, 20, 25, and 29, Liu disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1, 11, 22, and 26, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Liu discloses wherein the current block is a first current block, the method further comprising: determining LIC model parameters of a third block [Liu: ¶ [0062]: 2.1. Inter Prediction in HEVC/H.265].
Liu may not explicitly disclose determining an inverse of the LIC parameters; applying the inverse of the LIC parameters to a template of second current block; and decoding the second current block based on the applying the inverse of the LIC parameters to the template of the second current block.
However, Chubach discloses determining an inverse of the LIC parameters; applying the inverse of the LIC parameters to a template of second current block; and decoding the second current block based on the applying the inverse of the LIC parameters to the template of the second current block [Chubach: ¶ [0028] LIC may be subject to some of the following configuration conditions. When in-loop luma reshaping is used, the inverse reshaping is applied to the neighbor samples of the current CU prior to LIC parameter derivation, since the current CU neighbors are in the reshaped domain, but the reference picture samples are in the original (non-reshaped) domain; and ¶ [0031]: In some embodiments, to derive LIC linear model parameters, linear least square method is utilized. To apply the linear model, 1 multiplication and 1 addition are used per sample, which can be done at the reconstruction stage when prediction is added to the residual. When in-loop luma reshaping is used, the inverse reshaping is applied to the neighbor samples of the current CU prior to LIC parameter derivation, since the current CU neighbors are in the reshaped domain, but the reference picture samples are in the original (non-reshaped) domain].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of Liu with the inverse processing of Chubach in order to provide original data for use as reference to other portions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482