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 § 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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiu et al. (US20190166370A1), hereinafter referred to as Xiu.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, these claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the feature encoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claims 19 and 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Xiu which recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (See Xiu, ¶[0164] ).
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 1-4, 6-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu, in view of Nam et al. (US 20220060751 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nam.
Regarding claim 1, Xiu discloses decoding method, comprising:
parsing a bitstream to obtain first transform coefficients of a current block (¶[0080] discloses at the decoder, the bit-stream may be first parsed by the entropy decoder 804. The residual coefficients are then inverse quantized and inverse transformed);
determining a first intra prediction mode (¶[0008] discloses a derived intra coding mode is selected from the plurality of candidate intra coding modes);
performing second transform on the second transform coefficients, to obtain a residual block of the current block (¶[0043] discloses the quantized residual coefficients are inverse quantized (110) and inverse transformed (112) to form the reconstructed residual ); and
determining a reconstructed block of the current block based on a prediction block of the current block and the residual block of the current block (¶[0080] discloses the prediction signal and the reconstructed residual are then added together to get the reconstructed video)
Xiu does not explicitly disclose performing first transform on the first transform coefficients based on a transform set corresponding to the first intra prediction mode, to obtain second transform coefficients of the current block;
However, Nam from the same or similar endeavor of image coding discloses performing first transform on the first transform coefficients based on a transform set corresponding to the first intra prediction mode, to obtain second transform coefficients of the current block (¶¶[0011] and [0023] disclose the inverse secondary transform may be performed based on whether intra prediction for the current block is matrix based intra prediction (MIP));
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 Xiu to add the teachings of Nam, in order to ensure the transform matches the prediction mode (as in ¶¶[0011] and [0023] of Nam) improving encoding/decoding efficiency (Nam, [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Xiu and Nam disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Xiu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the first intra prediction mode comprises: determining the first intra prediction mode to be an intra prediction mode derived from a mode (¶¶[0004] and [0078] disclose systems and methods are described for template-based decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD).
Xiu does not explicitly disclose the for an output vector of an optimal matrix based intra prediction (MIP) mode for predicting the current block, wherein the output vector of the optimal MIP mode is a vector before up-sampling a vector output from the optimal MIP mode; or the output vector of the optimal MIP mode is a vector after up-sampling the vector output from the optimal MIP mode.
However, Nam from the same or similar endeavor of image coding discloses the for an output vector of an optimal matrix based intra prediction (MIP) mode for predicting the current block, wherein the output vector of the optimal MIP mode is a vector before up-sampling a vector output from the optimal MIP mode; or the output vector of the optimal MIP mode is a vector after up-sampling the vector output from the optimal MIP mode (¶¶[0011] and [0023] disclose the inverse secondary transform may be performed based on whether intra prediction for the current block is matrix based intra prediction (MIP)).
The motivation for combining Xiu and Nam has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Xiu and Nam disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Xiu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the first intra prediction mode comprises: determining the first intra prediction mode based on a prediction mode for predicting the current block (¶[0008] discloses plurality of candidate intra coding modes are tested by determining a cost of using each respective candidate mode to predict samples in a template region adjacent to the current block. Based on the cost, a derived intra coding mode is selected from the plurality of candidate intra coding modes. The samples in the current block are predicted with intra prediction using the derived intra coding mode.).
Regarding claim 4, Xiu and Nam disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Xiu and Nam discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining the first intra prediction mode based on the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprises:
in response to the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprising an optimal MIP mode and a suboptimal MIP mode for predicting the current block, determining the first intra prediction mode to be an intra prediction mode derived from a DIMD mode for the prediction block of the current block, or determining the first intra prediction mode to be an intra prediction mode derived from the DIMD mode for an output vector of the optimal MIP mode. (Xiu ¶[0008] discloses the structure of testing candidates to find the one with lowest cost, the optimal. The candidates tested but not selected are suboptimal. Nam, ¶¶[0011] and [0023] disclose the MIP that are plugged into the selection process. ).
The motivation for combining Xiu and Nam has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Xiu and Nam disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Xiu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining the first intra prediction mode based on the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprises and an intra prediction mode derived from a DIMD mode for reconstructed samples in a first template region adjacent to the current block (¶[0082] discloses a set of neighboring samples from above and left of the template; for example, DIMD may use the same set of reference samples) or determining the first intra prediction mode to be the intra prediction mode derived from the DIMD mode for the reconstructed samples in the first template region (¶[0082] discloses specify a set of already reconstructed samples that are used to derive the aforementioned intra prediction mode).
Xiu does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3, wherein determining the first intra prediction mode based on the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprises: in response to the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprising an optimal MIP mode determining the first intra prediction mode to be an intra prediction mode derived from the DIMD mode for the prediction block of the current block
However, Nam from the same or similar endeavor of image coding discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining the first intra prediction mode based on the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprises: in response to the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprising an optimal MIP mode and an intra prediction mode derived from a DIMD mode for reconstructed samples in a first template region adjacent to the current block, determining the first intra prediction mode to be an intra prediction mode derived from the DIMD mode for the prediction block of the current block, or determining the first intra prediction mode to be the intra prediction mode derived from the DIMD mode for the reconstructed samples in the first template region (¶[0011] discloses the inverse secondary transform may be performed based on whether intra prediction for the current block is matrix based intra prediction (MIP); ¶[0283] discloses syntax elements that may be used to specify MIP modes for luma sample; and [0148] discloses encoding apparatus may compare rate distortion (RD) cost for the intra prediction modes/types and determine an optimal intra prediction mode/type for the current block).
The motivation for combining Xiu and Nam has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Xiu and Nam disclose all the limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Xiu discloses the determining the optimal prediction mode based on distortion costs of a plurality of modes, wherein the distortion costs of the plurality of prediction modes comprise distortion costs obtained by predicting samples in a second template region adjacent to the current block in the plurality of the prediction modes (¶[0086] discloses the optimal DIMD mode is then compared with the optimal mode from normal intra prediction (with explicitly signaled prediction mode), for example, using rate distortion optimization criterion or another criterion of the encoder's choice).
Xiu does not explicitly disclose the determining the optimal MIP mode based on distortion costs of a plurality of MIP modes, wherein the distortion costs of the plurality of MIP modes comprise distortion costs obtained by predicting samples in a second template region adjacent to the current block in the plurality of MIP modes
However, Nam from the same or similar endeavor of image coding discloses the determining the optimal MIP mode based on distortion costs of a plurality of MIP modes, wherein the distortion costs of the plurality of MIP modes comprise distortion costs obtained by predicting samples in a second template region adjacent to the current block in the plurality of MIP modes (¶[0148] discloses the image encoding apparatus may compare rate distortion (RD) cost for the intra prediction modes/types and determine an optimal intra prediction mode/type for the current block; and [0288] discloses that a minimum of 11 MIP modes and a maximum of 35 MIP modes may be used. See also ¶[0291]).
The motivation for combining Xiu and Nam has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 8, Xiu and Nam disclose all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Xiu discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the second template region is the same as or different from the first template region (¶[0083] discloses the closest reconstructed samples to the target block, which forms one L-shaped region, are used as the template. In practice, templates with different shape and size may be selected).
Regarding claim 9, Xiu and Nam disclose all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Xiu does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, wherein determining the optimal MIP mode based on the distortion costs of the plurality of MIP modes comprises:
predicting the samples in the second template region based on a third flag and the plurality of MIP modes, to obtain distortion costs of the plurality of MIP modes in each state of the third flag, wherein the third flag indicates whether an input vector and an output vector corresponding to an MIP mode are transposed; and determining the optimal MIP mode based on the distortion costs of the plurality of MIP modes in each state of the third flag.
However, Nam from the same or similar endeavor of image coding discloses the method of claim 7, wherein determining the optimal MIP mode based on the distortion costs of the plurality of MIP modes comprises: predicting the samples in the second template region based on a third flag and the plurality of MIP modes, to obtain distortion costs of the plurality of MIP modes in each state of the third flag, wherein the third flag indicates whether an input vector and an output vector corresponding to an MIP mode are transposed; and determining the optimal MIP mode based on the distortion costs of the plurality of MIP modes in each state of the third flag. (¶[0291] discloses whether MIP applies to the current block may be determined the flag information the image encoding apparatus may determine an optimal mode by comparison of rate-distortion costs ).
The motivation for combining Xiu and Nam has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 10-13 and 15-18, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the decoding method of claims 1-4 and 6-9, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of a encoding method 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.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu, in view of Nam, and further, in view of Cao et al. (“EE2-related: Fusion for template-based intra mode derivation” Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 23rd Meeting, by teleconference, Document: JVET-W0123-v2, 7–16 July 2021), hereinafter referred to as Cao.
Regarding claim 5, Xiu and Nam disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Xiu does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3, wherein determining the first intra prediction mode based on the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprises:
in response to the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprising an optimal MIP mode and an intra prediction mode derived from a template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode, determining the first intra prediction mode to be an intra prediction mode derived from a DIMD mode for the prediction block of the current block, or determining the first intra prediction mode to be the intra prediction mode derived from the TIMD mode.
However, Cao from the same or similar endeavor of image coding discloses the method of claim 3, wherein determining the first intra prediction mode based on the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprises:
in response to the prediction mode for predicting the current block comprising an optimal MIP mode and an intra prediction mode derived from a template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode, determining the first intra prediction mode to be an intra prediction mode derived from a DIMD mode for the prediction block of the current block, or determining the first intra prediction mode to be the intra prediction mode derived from the TIMD mode (Abstract discloses a fusion of intra modes derived from the template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) method tested in EE2-2.1. Two modes are derived using TIMD method and are fused with the weights computed from the sum of absolute transformed differences, which is used as the cost function).
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 Xiu and Nam to add the teachings of Cao as above, in order to achieve 0.1% additional gain in AI configuration compared to the TIMD method without the fusion with the similar to EE2-2.1 runtimes (Cao, Conclusions).
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the decoding method of claim 5, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a encoding method 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.
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