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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 4/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 20210227243 A1) (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites in part: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprising:”
However, 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 “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the 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 Wu et al. (US 20210227243 A1) (hereinafter Wu) which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream. See Wu, ¶ 0197 discloses a device may store software instructions in an appropriate and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and may execute instructions by using hardware such as one or more processors to execute video encoding/decoding.
Claim(s) 1, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 20210227243 A1) (hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses:
A method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: [See Wu, ¶ 0088, 0167-0168 discloses video decoding performed via a memory and a processor.]
receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks that includes a current block; [See Wu, ¶ 0175, 0183-0185, 0187-0188 discloses receiving a video bitstream including a current encoding picture block.]
identifying a block vector for the current block; [See Wu, ¶ 0235-0237 discloses determining a motion vector for a current block.]
determining a minimum-cost position in a predetermined area of a location indicated by the block vector; [See Wu, ¶ 0009, 0090, 0263-0264, 0277, 0282 discloses minimizing a function (cost function) representing a difference between a position of a reference block and a position of a current block. The motion vector indicated by a position of a matching picture block is the motion vector of the current picture block.]
deriving a sub-pixel position based on the minimum-cost position; and [See Wu, ¶ 0056, 0070, 0089-0091 discloses obtaining first and second sub-pixel pictures of a sample picture at first and second fractional pixel positions, respectively.]
reconstructing the current block using the sub-pixel position. [See Wu, ¶ 0086-0087, 0169, discloses sub-pixel interpolation and reconstructing a current block based on a prediction block.]
Regarding claim 17, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been aware that decoding is simply the inverse operation of encoding and, in fact is often more generally referred to as "coding", encompassing both. Such a person would have been aware that in order to most accurately decode, it is typically best to use the same method on both the encoding and decoding ends.
Claim 17 thus recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected based on the decoder of claim 1 performing the complimentary operations of the corresponding encoder and encoding process with respect to video encoding method claim 17 as such.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 17 in the form of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Further, claim 20 recites the following limitations which are not explicitly found from claim 17, but are addressed as follows:
Wu discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprising: [See Wu, ¶ 0197 discloses a device may store software instructions in an appropriate and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and may execute instructions by using hardware such as one or more processors to execute video encoding/decoding.]
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 14-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20210227243 A1) (hereinafter Wu) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20240267533 A1) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the block vector is identified by performing a template matching-based intra prediction for the current block.
However, Zhang discloses:
wherein the block vector is identified by performing a template matching-based intra prediction for the current block. [See Zhang, ¶ 0629-0631 discloses template-based intra mode derivation.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Wu to add the teachings of Zhang in order to determine a minimum matching cost in motion information derivation.
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the sub-pixel position is derived when a syntax element in the video bitstream indicates that a sub-pixel derivation mode is enabled for the current block. [See Zhang, ¶ 0627-0631 discloses that a flag is signaled in sequence parameter set (SPS) to enable/disable the proposed method. When the flag is true, a CU level flag is signaled to indicate whether the proposed TIMD method is used.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Zhang discloses:
further comprising, when the syntax element in the video bitstream indicates that the sub-pixel derivation mode is disabled for the current block, reconstructing the current block using a pixel location indicated by the block vector. [See Zhang, ¶ 0627-0631 discloses that a flag is signaled in sequence parameter set (SPS) to enable/disable the proposed method. When the flag is true, a CU level flag is signaled to indicate whether the proposed TIMD method is used.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the syntax element in the video bitstream indicates which sub-pixel derivation technique from a plurality of sub-pixel derivation techniques is to be applied for the current block. [See Zhang, ¶ 0627-0635 discloses that a flag is signaled in sequence parameter set (SPS) to enable/disable the proposed method. Further, for each intra prediction mode in MPMs, The SATD between the prediction and reconstruction samples of the template is calculated. The intra prediction mode with the minimum SATD is selected as the TIMD mode and used for intra prediction of current CU.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the sub-pixel position is derived using costs associated with 5 adjacent pixel locations. [See Zhang, ¶ 0407-0410 discloses that the fractional position with the smallest cost is solved by using cost values of five search points, the center position and four neighboring positions.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, Wu in view of Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the 5 adjacent pixel locations correspond to a pixel location set selected from multiple pixel location set candidates. [See Zhang, ¶ 0407-0410 discloses that in sub-pixel offset estimation, a fractional position with the smallest cost is solved by using cost values of five search points, the center position and four neighboring positions, the center position determined from fractional sample refinement.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 18, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 17.
Zhang discloses:
further comprising signaling a syntax element in a video bitstream, the syntax element indicating that a sub-pixel derivation mode is enabled for the current block. [See Zhang, ¶ 0076, 0629-0631 discloses signaling a syntax element (flag) to enable/disable template-based intra mode derivation.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, Wu in view of Zhang discloses all the limitations of claim 18.
Zhang discloses:
wherein the syntax element indicates which sub-pixel derivation technique of a plurality of sub-pixel derivation techniques is to be used for the current block. [See Zhang, ¶ 0076, 0629-0631 discloses signaling a syntax element (flag) to enable/disable template-based intra mode derivation.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 2.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20210227243 A1) (hereinafter Wu) in view of Guillame et al. (GB2595195A) (hereinafter Guillame).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the sub-pixel position is derived according to a sub-pixel resolution.
However, Guillame discloses:
wherein the sub-pixel position is derived according to a sub-pixel resolution. [See Guillame, pg. 17 line 23 – pg. 18 line 21 discloses that sub-pixel positions are determined at a given sub-pixel resolution.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Wu to add the teachings of Guillame in order to improve coding efficiency (Guillame, pg. 2 lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Guillame discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Guillame discloses:
wherein the sub-pixel resolution is selected from a set of two or more sub-pixel resolution candidates. [See Guillame, pg. 6 lines 6-11 discloses that sub-pixel positions are selected at a 1/16 sub-pixel or higher resolutions, which comprises “two or more” sub-pixel resolution candidates as required by the claim.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Guillame discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Guillame discloses:
wherein the sub-pixel resolution is a fixed value. [See Guillame, pg. 6 lines 6-11 discloses that sub-pixel positions are selected at a 1/16 sub-pixel resolution.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 6.
Claim(s) 9-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 20210227243 A1) (hereinafter Wu) in view of Sethuraman et al. (US 20210329257 A1) (hereinafter Sethuraman).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein deriving the sub-pixel position based on the minimum-cost position comprises updating the block vector to indicate the sub-pixel position.
However, Sethuraman discloses:
wherein deriving the sub-pixel position based on the minimum-cost position comprises updating the block vector to indicate the sub-pixel position. [See Sethuraman, ¶ 0120 discloses that if a sub-pixel accurate delta-MV (motion vector difference) is available, it is used to update the refined MV for a sub-PU.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Wu to add the teachings of Sethuraman in order to allow a refined MV to be used for spatial MV prediction, deblocking strength determination, and as a temporal motion vector predictor (Sethuraman, para. 0112).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sethuraman discloses:
wherein the minimum-cost position is determined using a predetermined searching method. [See Sethuraman, ¶ 0115 discloses performing a cost calculation for all rows of all search positions – a lowest cost among all the positions is determined.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Wu discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Sethuraman discloses:
wherein the sub-pixel position is conditionally derived based on the minimum-cost position. [See Sethuraman, ¶ 0115, 0123-0127 discloses an integer distance motion vector position is conditionally dependent upon a cost function evaluation.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, Wu in view of Sethuraman discloses all the limitations of claim 11.
Sethuraman discloses:
wherein the minimum-cost position is determined using a sum of absolute differences. [See Sethuraman, ¶ 0016 discloses that either the sum of absolute differences or the mean-removed sum of absolute differences is used as a matching cost function.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 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 PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 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 at 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486