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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102A1 as being anticipated by US 20210195245 A1-Li et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors (fig. 8-9, 16-17, 19, 21, 27-30, 32, 35-40, 42-43, 51, 53) the method comprising:
receiving a video bitstream comprising a current block ([0149], receives a bitstream);
identifying a first prediction mode for the current block ([0166]);
mapping the first prediction mode to a corresponding intra prediction mode ([0304], wherein IMTS may be used only for intra prediction blocks, or may be used for both intra prediction blocks and inter prediction block);
selecting a first transform set from a plurality of transform sets based on the corresponding intra prediction mode ([0305], wherein selection process for selectively switching transform types); and
reconstructing the current block using the first transform set ([0379]).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first prediction mode is an inter prediction mode ([0376], inter prediction).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first prediction mode is an intra block copy (IBC) mode ([0650], intra block copy).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first prediction mode comprises a template-matching prediction mode ([0661], template matching).
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first prediction mode comprises a combined inter-intra prediction mode ([0304], both intra and inter are being used; [0415], combined inter merge/intra prediction (CIIP) mode), and wherein the corresponding intra prediction mode is based on intra portion of the combined inter-intra prediction mode ([0438]).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first prediction mode comprises a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) ([0743]).
Regarding claim 7, Li discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the corresponding intra prediction mode is based on a split direction of the GPM ([0610], wherein intra prediction is based on splitting pattern).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the corresponding intra prediction mode is based on an intra prediction portion of the GPM ([0295]).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses he method of claim 1, further comprising deriving a transform set index for the current block based on the corresponding intra prediction mode, wherein the first transform set is selected using the transform set index ([0304]).
Regarding claim 18, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 18, encode ([0006])
Regarding claim 20, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 20. Claim 20 is also directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (CRM) storing a bitstream generated by an encoding method. The claim does not recite that the CRM contains executable instruction, that when executed, implement the encoding method. The bitstream is a product produced by the encoding method. Therefore, the claims are not limited to the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. (See MPEP 2113 - Product-by-Process claims.) Hence, the encoding method steps recited are given patentable weight only to structures in the bitstream that are implied by the steps. To be given patentable weight, the CRM and the bitstream (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the CRM to which it is associated. See 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 CRM storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the CRM of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the CRM.
Therefore, 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 storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Li, which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream ([0169] storing the encoded bitstream on a storage medium).
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210195245 A1-Li et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in view of US 20130089145 A1-Guo et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Guo”).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses the method of claim 1,
Li fails to disclose parsing a syntax element from the video bitstream to determine whether to adjust the corresponding intra prediction, wherein the first transform set is selected based on the corresponding intra prediction mode and the syntax element.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses parsing a syntax element from the video bitstream to determine whether to adjust the corresponding intra prediction ([0028]), wherein the first transform set is selected based on the corresponding intra prediction mode and the syntax element ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Li to disclose parsing a syntax element from the video bitstream to determine whether to adjust the corresponding intra prediction, wherein the first transform set is selected based on the corresponding intra prediction mode and the syntax element as taught by Guo, to improve coding efficiency ([0058], Guo).
Regarding claim 19, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 9 and are applicable for claim 19.
Claim(s) 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210195245 A1-Li et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in view of US 20240171752 A1-Kidani.
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses the method of claim 1,
Li fails to disclose wherein the first prediction mode maps to a set of two or more corresponding intra prediction modes, and wherein the corresponding intra prediction mode is selected according to a syntax element in the video bitstream.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kidani discloses wherein the first prediction mode maps to a set of two or more corresponding intra prediction modes (fig. 13), and wherein the corresponding intra prediction mode is selected according to a syntax element in the video bitstream ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Li to disclose wherein the first prediction mode maps to a set of two or more corresponding intra prediction modes, and wherein the corresponding intra prediction mode is selected according to a syntax element in the video bitstream as taught by Kidani, to improve coding efficiency ([0059], Kidani).
Claim(s) 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210195245 A1-Li et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in view of US 20240171752 A1-Kidani, in further view of US 20200304782 A1-Zhaoo et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 15, Kidani discloses the method of claim 14,
Kidani fails to disclose wherein the syntax element indicates an index for the set of two or more corresponding intra prediction modes.
Zhao discloses wherein the syntax element indicates an index for the set of two or more corresponding intra prediction modes ([0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Li and Kidani to disclose wherein the syntax element indicates an index for the set of two or more corresponding intra prediction modes as taught by Zhao, to improve visual quality ([0111).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210195245 A1-Li et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Li”), in view of US 20200304782 A1-Zhaoo et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses the method of claim 1,
Li fails to disclose wherein the corresponding intra prediction mode is in a range of [-15, 81] inclusive.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhao discloses wherein the corresponding intra prediction mode is in a range of [-15, 81] inclusive ([0186]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Li to disclose wherein the corresponding intra prediction mode is in a range of [-15, 81] inclusive as taught by Zhao, to improve visual quality ([0111).
Regarding claim 17, Zhao discloses the method of claim 16, wherein each intra prediction mode is mapped to a corresponding transform set of the plurality of transform sets (fig. 38), and wherein at least one transform set in the plurality of transform sets is a transpose of another transform set in the plurality of transform sets ([0137]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights