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 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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream, but then goes on to list only method steps with no mention of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or any storing at all. It is unclear if this claim is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or a method, which are two distinct categories of statutory subject matter. It appears the Applicant is attempting to mix two statutory categories of claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1,11, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Tsai US 20200396444.
Regarding claim 1, Tsai meets the claim limitations, as follows:
1. An intra prediction fusion (IPF) method, the method being applied to a decoder and comprising:
determining whether a restriction condition for use of IPF for a current block is satisfied, when an intra prediction mode selected for the current block comprises an angular mode (i.e. flag intra_fusion_flag (condition) signaled in the bitstream. The decoder then determines mode among, planar, DC and angular.) [58]; and
restricting the use of IPF for intra prediction on the current block, when at least one of the restriction condition is satisfied (i.e. flag intra_fusion_flag (condition) would signal when the intra fusion prediction mode is able to be used (restrict).) [58].
Claim 11 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1. This is the encoder of claim 1. Corresponding encoder shown in [29,33]
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1 and further below.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0227222) (hereinafter Lee).
In regard to claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, claim 13 and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, claim 20 is anticipated by Lee, as Lee discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream. Lee discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts [¶0024; computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a video coding method] comprising:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsai in view of Lee US 20200244956.
Regarding claim 4, Tsai do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein, the restriction condition comprises any one or more of: restriction condition 1: a TIMD fusion mode is selected for the current block; restriction condition 2: a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) fusion mode is selected for the current block; restriction condition 3: multiple reference line (MRL) is used for the current block; restriction condition 4: an index of a reference line selected for the current block is greater than or equal to K, wherein K is an integer greater than or equal to 3; restriction condition 5: a width of the current block is less than or equal to a set value; restriction condition 6: a height of the current block is less than or equal to a set value; restriction condition 7: a product of the width and the height of the current block is less than or equal to a set value; restriction condition 8: an intra sub-partitions (ISP) mode is used for the current block; restriction condition 9: an angle of an angular mode selected for the current block is equal to -45°, 0°, 45°, 90°, or 135°, or an angular mode selected for the current block is an angular mode with an integer slope; restriction condition 10: a current frame to which the current block belongs is an inter frame; and restriction condition 11: a current picture to which the current block belongs is not a luma picture; wherein wherein IPF is not allowed for intra prediction on the current block when at least one of the restriction conditions 1 to 11 is satisfied.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lee discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein, the restriction condition comprises any one or more of: restriction condition 1: a TIMD fusion mode is selected for the current block; restriction condition 2: a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) fusion mode is selected for the current block; restriction condition 3: multiple reference line (MRL) is used for the current block [193]; restriction condition 4: an index of a reference line selected for the current block is greater than or equal to K, wherein K is an integer greater than or equal to 3; restriction condition 5: a width of the current block is less than or equal to a set value; restriction condition 6: a height of the current block is less than or equal to a set value; restriction condition 7: a product of the width and the height of the current block is less than or equal to a set value; restriction condition 8: an intra sub-partitions (ISP) mode is used for the current block; restriction condition 9: an angle of an angular mode selected for the current block is equal to -45°, 0°, 45°, 90°, or 135°, or an angular mode selected for the current block is an angular mode with an integer slope; restriction condition 10: a current frame to which the current block belongs is an inter frame; and restriction condition 11: a current picture to which the current block belongs is not a luma picture; wherein wherein IPF is not allowed for intra prediction on the current block when at least one of the restriction conditions 1 to 11 is satisfied.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Tsai with Lee to have restriction condition 3: multiple reference line (MRL) is used for the current block.
It would be advantageous because “Image data may be effectively compressed by using such image compression technology, and may be transmitted or stored.” [4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Tsai with Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Claim 14 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,3,5-10,12,13,15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426