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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Zhang discloses in figure 13 and figure 19 that “numbers of top and left valid samples in the subset of N samples are balanced proportionally to block dimensions or to numbers of top and left valid samples”, because in figure 13 and figure 19, the height and width of the block or the numbers of top and left available valid samples are proportional to the numbers of top and left selected valid samples.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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)(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, 3, 4, 6-9, 11-12, 14-16, 18-20, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20170150183 A1).
Regarding claim 1. Zhang discloses A method of decoding a block of samples of a picture of a video ([0007] a method of decoding encoded video data, reconstructing, by the video decoder, samples of a coding block by adding samples of a predictive block to corresponding samples of the residual block for the TU of the CU), the method comprising:
determining, for the block of samples, a set of NM valid samples from a set of neighboring top and left reconstructed samples ([0057] The reconstructed luma reference samples and the reconstructed chroma reference samples are samples along the top and left sides of the PU; [0060] available reference samples; figure 19, [0188] The first set of pixels includes available reconstructed neighboring pixels in a left column and an above row of a current CU (i.e., a CU that contains the current PU));
selecting a subset of N valid samples in the set of NM valid samples so that numbers of top and left valid samples in the subset of N samples are balanced proportionally to block dimensions or to numbers of top and left valid samples (figure 13, [0142] the small circles indicate sample values used for determining the LM parameters α and β; figure 19, [0188]-[0189]; [0059] The set of luma reference samples may comprise luma samples neighboring a top side of a non-square luma block of a current picture of the video data and luma samples neighboring a left side of the non-square luma block. The set of chroma reference samples may comprise chroma samples neighboring the top side of a non-square chroma block and chroma samples neighboring the left side of the non-square chroma block);
determining local illumination compensation parameters from the subset of N valid samples and corresponding reference samples in a reference block ([0068] the formula defining the IC parameter b in 3D-HEVC involves a division operation by the number of reference samples neighboring the current CU's top and left sides; [0186] a IC process derives IC parameters based on neighboring samples of a current CU and neighboring samples of a reference block; figure 19, [0188] The first set of pixels includes available reconstructed neighboring pixels in a left column and an above row of a current CU (i.e., a CU that contains the current PU). The second set of pixels includes corresponding neighboring pixels of a reference block of the current CU; [0189] FIG. 19 illustrates neighboring pixels used to estimate parameters in the IC model); and
reconstructing the block from a prediction block obtained by applying, on the reference block, local illumination compensation based on the determined local illumination compensation parameters (figure 24, [0335] prediction processing unit 200 performs the illumination compensation techniques; figure 25, [0355] prediction processing unit 252 performs the illumination compensation techniques).
Regarding claim 3. Zhang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein N is a power of two ([0060] the total number of reference samples in the set of luma reference samples is a power of 2).
Regarding claim 4. Zhang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein selecting a subset of N samples in the set of NM valid samples comprises selecting a subset of N samples in the set of NM valid samples so that numbers of top and left valid samples are balanced proportionally to a ratio between a height and a width of the block (figure 13, [0142] the small circles indicate sample values used for determining the LM parameters α and β; figure 19, [0188]-[0189]).
Regarding claim 6. Zhang discloses The method of claim 1, wherein selecting a subset of N samples in the set of NM valid samples comprises
selecting a subset of N samples in the set of NM valid samples so that numbers of top and left valid samples are balanced proportionally to a ratio between a number of valid samples on the left and a number of valid samples on the top (figure 13, [0142] the small circles indicate sample values used for determining the LM parameters α and β; figure 19, [0188]-[0189]).
Regarding claim 7. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1 (corresponding encoding method).
Regarding claim 11. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 12. The same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 14. The same analysis has been stated in claim 6.
Regarding claim 15. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16. The same analysis has been stated in claim 1.
Regarding claim 18. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 19. The same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 20. The same analysis has been stated in claim 6.
Regarding claim 22. The same analysis has been stated in claim 3.
Regarding claim 23. The same analysis has been stated in claim 4.
Regarding claim 24. The same analysis has been stated in claim 6.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 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 2, 10, 17, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 20170150183 A1) in view of Strom et al. (Description of Core Experiment 1 (CE1): Post-prediction and post-reconstruction filtering).
Regarding claim 2. Strom discloses that a neighboring reconstructed sample is considered as a valid sample on a condition that the sample has not been coded with a mode amongst a set of coding modes and/or with a parameter amongst a set of parameters values (CE 1.5 local illumination compensation, Usage of reconstructed intra coded, CIIP and IBC blocks, as this would have impact on complexity and parallel implementation pipelining (test with and without, and further study the impact). Disable for CIIP and IBC blocks. It is not applied to bi-prediction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inventions of Zhang and Strom, to disable illumination compensation for intra coded, CIIP and IBC blocks; and for bi-prediction, in order to better implement parallel coding.
Regarding claim 10. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 17. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
Regarding claim 21. The same analysis has been stated in claim 2.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 XIAOLAN XU whose telephone number is (571)270-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Fri. 9am-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, SATH V. PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571) 272-7455. 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.
/XIAOLAN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights