DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN109600611A (CN611)
US 20200296425 A1 (Seregin425)
US 20220030226 A1 (Lee226)
US 20220150507 A1 (Lin507)
US 20150071357 A1 (Pang357)
US 20210392370 A1 (Lim370)
US 20220394309 A1
WO2021088835A1 (equivalent US 20220272335 A1, However Fig.17-18)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for following reason.
Re: Prior art rejection of independent claims
Applicant argued in substance that CN11/Chen does not teach copying and shifting the in-boundary samples relative to corresponding boundaries of the video unit.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that Fig.4 shows pixels (C2, C5-7) in the extended padding are shifted and mirrored from in boundary, these pixels are same pixels/copy of C2, C5-7 inside the boundary. In other word c2 and c7 is shifted 2 positions. C6 is shifted 4 positions, c5 is 5 positions. Also, if the whole sublock is considered, it is copied and shifted one position then flipped.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive
Similarly applicant’s argument with respect to Seregin is not persuasive. Para 191 and Fig.6 shows extended boundary pixel C1 is replaced with C5, i.e. C5 is copied and shifted one position and so on..
Re: Prior art rejection of dependent claims
Applicant has presented no additional argument, other than arguments already presented with respect to independent claims. Therefore, the arguments are similarly not persuasive.
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 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN611.
CN611 teaches following claims as explained below
1. A method for processing video data comprising: determining to apply a padding process to derive out of boundary samples for use by a filter applied to in boundary samples within a video unit of a video [(para 65 and Fig.4; pixel values of the virtual pixel sample are filled with the pixel values of the pixels within the boundary; the virtual samples are out of the CTU boundary)] : and performing a conversion between the video and a bitstream of the video based on the filter.[[(para 4-5, video coding decoding)]
wherein the padding process is an extended padding process that derives out of boundary samples by copying and shifting the in-boundary samples relative to corresponding boundaries of the video unit [(para 66, Fig.4 shows pixels (C2, C5-7) in the extended padding are shifted and mirrored from in boundary, these pixels are same pixels/copy of C2, C5-7 inside the boundary)] .
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the padding process is a mirrored padding process that derives out of boundary samples as a mirror image of the in boundary samples relative to corresponding boundaries of the video unit. [(para 14)]
4. The method of claim 1, wherein a reference position of the padding process is M samples away from a boundary of the video unit, where M is an integer value. [(para 18-20)]
6. The method of claim 1, wherein a padding size of the padding process is dependent on a filter size of the filter. [(para 37)]
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the padding process is applied to any directional boundary of the video unit. [(Fig.4)]
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the padding process is applied to a picture boundary, a subpicture boundary, a slice boundary, a tile boundary, a coding tree unit (CTU) boundary, a coding unit (CU) boundary, a transform unit (TU) boundary, a prediction unit (PU) boundary, a block boundary, a unit boundary, a virtual boundary, or combinations thereof. [(Fig.4)]
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the filter is a pre-processing filter, or an in-loop filter, or a post-processing filter, and wherein the filter is at least one of: a motion compensation based temporal filter (MCTF), an adaptive loop filter (ALF), a cross component ALF, a deblocking filter, a bilateral filter, a sample adaptive offset (SAO), a cross component SAO, a super resolution filter, an un-sharp mask filter, or combinations thereof. [(para 67)]
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the padding process includes one or more padding processes applied to different color components [(para 35-36 luma, chroma)] .
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the video unit is at least one of: a sequence, a picture, a sub-picture, a slice, a tile, a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, groups of CTU, a coding unit (CU), a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a coding tree block (CTB), a coding block (CB), a prediction block (PB), a transform block (TB), or any other region that contains more than one luma or chroma sample or pixel. . [(Fig.4)]
16. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining to apply the padding process or how to apply the padding process is based on at least one syntax element in the bitstream, or wherein the determining to apply the padding process or how to apply the padding process is dependent on coded information including at least one of block size, color format, single tree partitioning, dual tree partitioning, color component, slice type or picture type. [(para 18-19; based on color component)]
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the video into the bitstream. [(para 62)]
18. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the video from the bitstream. [(para 63)]
19. An apparatus for processing video data comprising: a processor: and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: [(para 98- 99)] determine to apply a padding process to derive out of boundary samples for use by a filter applied to in boundary samples within a video unit of a video: and perform a conversion between the video and a bitstream of the video based on the filter. [(see analysis of claim 1)]
20. see analysis of claim 1 and para 108
Claims 1-2,4, 6, 10-12, 14-15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seregin425.
Seregin425 teaches following claims as explained below
1. A method for processing video data comprising: determining to apply a padding process to derive out of boundary samples for use by a filter applied to in boundary samples within a video unit of a video [(para 5 & 27, 267, Fig.3A)] : and performing a conversion between the video and a bitstream of the video based on the filter.[[(para 23-24)]
wherein the padding process is an extended padding process that derives out of boundary samples by copying and shifting the in-boundary samples relative to corresponding boundaries of the video unit [(para 127, Fig.3A, 152C replaced by 152B; para 191, Fig.6; C1 is replaced with C5, i.e. C5 is copied and shifted one position and so on)] .
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the padding process is a mirrored padding process that derives out of boundary samples as a mirror image of the in boundary samples relative to corresponding boundaries of the video unit. [(para 127, 123)]
4. The method of claim 1, wherein a reference position of the padding process is M samples away from a boundary of the video unit, where M is an integer value. [(Fig.3A, Fig.4A)]
6. The method of claim 1, wherein a padding size of the padding process is dependent on a filter size of the filter. [(para 189)]
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the padding process is applied to any directional boundary of the video unit. [(para 124,125 94)]
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the padding process is applied to a picture boundary, a subpicture boundary, a slice boundary, a tile boundary, a coding tree unit (CTU) boundary, a coding unit (CU) boundary, a transform unit (TU) boundary, a prediction unit (PU) boundary, a block boundary, a unit boundary, a virtual boundary, or combinations thereof. [(para 5)]
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the filter is a pre-processing filter, or an in-loop filter, or a post-processing filter, and wherein the filter is at least one of: a motion compensation based temporal filter (MCTF), an adaptive loop filter (ALF), a cross component ALF, a deblocking filter, a bilateral filter, a sample adaptive offset (SAO), a cross component SAO, a super resolution filter, an un-sharp mask filter, or combinations thereof. [(para 5)]
14. The method of claim 1, wherein the padding process includes one or more padding processes applied to different color components [(para 100, 142 luma, chroma)] .
15. The method of claim 1, wherein the video unit is at least one of: a sequence, a picture, a sub-picture, a slice, a tile, a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, groups of CTU, a coding unit (CU), a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a coding tree block (CTB), a coding block (CB), a prediction block (PB), a transform block (TB), or any other region that contains more than one luma or chroma sample or pixel. . [(para 5)]
17. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the video into the bitstream. [(para 24)]
18. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the video from the bitstream. [(para 24)]
19. An apparatus for processing video data comprising: a processor: and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: [(para 238, Fig.1)] determine to apply a padding process to derive out of boundary samples for use by a filter applied to in boundary samples within a video unit of a video: and perform a conversion between the video and a bitstream of the video based on the filter. [(see analysis of claim 1)]
20. see analysis of claim 1 and para 108
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 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.
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.
Claims 9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN611 in view of Lee226.
Regarding Claim 9. CN611 does not explicitly show wherein the padding process employs an intra prediction mode related to an in-boundary sample to derive an out of boundary sample:
or wherein the padding process employs an affine prediction mode parameter related to an in boundary sample to derive an out of boundary sample
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Lee226 teaches wherein the padding process employs an intra prediction mode related to an in-boundary sample to derive an out of boundary sample: or wherein the padding process employs an affine prediction mode parameter related to an in boundary sample to derive an out of boundary sample[(Lee226 para 212 intra prediction; also see para 406)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein the padding process is applied to a first process before in-loop filter, out of boundary samples and the in boundary samples are prediction samples or reconstructed samples generated by the first process, and wherein the first process is at least one of intra prediction, inter prediction, affine prediction, intra block copy prediction, or combinations thereof. . [(Lee226 para 212 intra prediction; Fig.1 in-loop filtering 180 is applied after intraprediction and reconstruction by 120 and 175 respectively )]
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN611 in view of Lin507.
Regarding Claim 8. CN611 does not explicitly show the padding process is a motion compensation-based padding process which employs motion information related to an in-boundary sample to derive an out of boundary sample.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Lin507 teaches wherein the padding process is a motion compensation-based padding process which employs motion information related to an in-boundary sample to derive an out of boundary sample. [(Lin507 para 61 and 62)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claims 7 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN611 in view of Pang357.
Regarding Claims 7, 21. CN611 does not explicitly show out of boundary samples located at a corner of the video unit are derived by using horizontal padded samples or vertical padded samples
However, in the same/related field of endeavor,
Pang357 teaches wherein out of boundary samples located at a corner of the video unit are derived by using horizontal padded samples or vertical padded samples . [(Pang357 para 127 especially “when both horizontal and vertical neighboring reconstructed pixels 124 are unavailable, such as the bottom right part of the pixels to be padded 122 in FIG. 6, the nearest available reconstructed pixel will be copied to pad such pixels, whether such pixel is above or to the left of the unavailable pixel.”, para 126 and Fig.6; the bottom-right corner is padded by copying the above or left already padded pixel. Please note the left and top of this bottom-right pixels are padded region {para 126 and Fig.6})]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN611 in view of Lim370.
Regarding Claim 5. CN611 does not explicitly show a padding size of the padding process is a predefined value N, wherein N is an even integer value
Lim370 teaches a padding size of the padding process is a predefined value N, wherein N is an even integer value. [(para 15, 199})]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights