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
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) 1-15 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Koo US 20220132134.
Regarding claim 1, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a current block and a syntax element (i.e. bitstream contains blocks and syntax) [78; fig. 3];
identifying an intra prediction mode for the current block (i.e. may determine intra/inter prediction mode.) [82-84];
parsing the syntax element to determine whether to change the intra prediction mode when deriving a transform set index (i.e. the total number of the intra prediction modes for a specific block (e.g. a non-square block of a specific size) are remapped and may not change.) [102,236,386-387];
deriving the transform set index for the current block based on the intra prediction mode and the parsed syntax element (i.e. the transform set is determined based on the value of the intra prediction mode extended by considering the Wide Angle Intra Prediction (WAIP)) [205-206];
selecting a first transform set from a plurality of transform sets according to the transform set index (i.e. transform set selected using index signaling) [205]; and
reconstructing the current block using the first transform set (i.e. reconstruction performed using the LFNST which is a transform type discussed above) [78,86,87,251].
Regarding claim 2, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein syntax element indicates an intra mode offset, and wherein the transform set index is derived by adding the intra mode offset to the intra prediction mode (i.e. numerals represent an offset for a mode index value) [98].
Regarding claim 3, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax element indicates what change to make to the intra prediction mode, and wherein a number of allowed changes is restricted to a particular value (i.e. 0,1,2 are possible transmit index values where 0 may indicate that the LFNST is not applied.) [205-206,236,298].
Regarding claim 4, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 3, wherein the particular value is 2 (i.e. 2 is a possible value.) [205-206,236,298].
Regarding claim 5, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 3, wherein the particular value adaptively determined based on coding information (i.e. 0,1,2 are possible transmit index values where 0 may indicate that the LFNST is not applied.) [205-206,236,298].
Regarding claim 6, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax element indicates a first change for the intra prediction mode from a predefined set of changes (i.e. 0,1,2 are possible transmit index values where 0 may indicate that the LFNST is not applied.) [205-206,236,298].
Regarding claim 7, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein the predefined set of changes is based on coding information (i.e. 0,1,2 are possible transmit index values where 0 may indicate that the LFNST is not applied.) [205-206,236,298].
Regarding claim 8, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the intra prediction mode is in a range of [-15, 81] inclusive (i.e. an intra prediction could be in that range) [100].
Regarding claim 9, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, after applying a change to the intra prediction mode indicated by the syntax element and prior to deriving the transform set index, mapping the intra prediction mode to a final intra prediction mode, wherein the transform set index is derived using the final intra prediction mode (i.e. intra prediction mode is divided based on certain criteria) [105-106,374,390].
Regarding claim 10, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 9, wherein the intra prediction mode is mapped to the final intra prediction mode when the intra prediction mode has a value in a range of [-15, -1] or in a range of [66, 81] (i.e. an intra prediction could be in that range) [100].
Regarding claim 11, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 9, wherein the intra prediction mode is selectively mapped to the final intra prediction mode when applying the change to the intra prediction mode indicated by the syntax element causes the intra prediction mode to switch between a non-directional intra mode and a directional intra prediction mode (i.e. an intra prediction could be in that range. Intra prediction mode values indicate directional and non-directional intra prediction.) [98,100].
Regarding claim 12, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein reconstructing the current block using the first transform set comprises applying a low-frequency non-separable transform (LFNST) or a non-separable primary transform (NSPT) [146].
Regarding claim 13, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax element is entropy coded (i.e. entropy decoder decodes bitstream with syntax) [73,79,377].
Regarding claim 14, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax element is signaled for one or more luma blocks and is not signaled for one or more chroma blocks (i.e. CCLM syntax element is not signaled for the chroma block) [223,286-289].
Regarding claim 15, Koo meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax element is signaled for the current block only when a non-separable transform is applied for the current block (i.e. the secondary inverse transform may be an NSST, an RST, or an LFNST and the secondary inverse transform application determinator may determine whether to apply the secondary inverse transform based on a secondary transform flag obtained by parsing the bitstream.) [134,154,181].
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1. This is the encoder of claim 1. Encoder shown in Koo [62,75; fig. 2]
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1 and 18.
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 20 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) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo in view of Deshpande US 20240048770.
Regarding claim 16, Koo do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the syntax element is signaled for the current block only when a temporal layer identifier for the current block meets one or more criteria
However, in the same field of endeavor Deshpande discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the syntax element is signaled for the current block only when a temporal layer identifier for the current block meets one or more criteria (i.e. syntax element indicates whether a parameter for a temporal layer id with a certain number of temporal layers is included.) [5].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Koo with Deshpande to have wherein the syntax element is signaled for the current block only when a temporal layer identifier for the current block meets one or more criteria.
It would be advantageous because this provides simplification of syntax and improves coding efficiency [442].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Koo with Deshpande to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo in view of Park US 20240179303.
Regarding claim 17, Koo do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the syntax element is signaled for the current block only when the intra prediction mode is a directional intra prediction mode
However, in the same field of endeavor Park discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the syntax element is signaled for the current block only when the intra prediction mode is a directional intra prediction mode (i.e. If intra_timd_flag is the second value (e.g., 1) and the derived intra prediction mode is a directional mode, index information (e.g., intra_mode_idex) may be signaled.) [161].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Koo with Park to have the syntax element is signaled for the current block only when the intra prediction mode is a directional intra prediction mode.
It would be advantageous because "However, the video size, resolution, and frame rate are gradually increasing, and thus the amount of data to be encoded is also increasing. Accordingly, a new compression technique having better encoding efficiency and higher image quality than the existing compression technique is required.” [6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Koo with Park to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
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