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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: VIDEO SIGNAL PROCESSING METHOD AND DEVICE INVOLVING INTRA PREDICTION OF A BLOCK DIVIDED INTO TWO REGIONS.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes legal phraseology such as “comprises” and does not seem to describe the claimed invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 16-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0163664 A1 (“Guo”) in view of US 2020/0366931 A1 (“Ko”).
Regarding claim 16, Guo discloses a method of decoding an image based on intra prediction,
wherein a current block in the image is divided into two regions including a first region and a second region (e.g. see asymmetric partitioning a coding unit CU or a block into two rectangles as illustrated in Fig. 8 for short distance intra prediction (SDIP) of the block, paragraphs [0155]-[0156]),
the method comprising:
generating a first prediction sample of the first region in the current block based on a plurality of reference samples (e.g. see for SDIP of the CU or the block, the first prediction unit PU (within the CU) is predicted from neighboring pixels to the CU, paragraphs [0139]-[0140], [0157]-[0158]; thus for asymmetric block, e.g. 232A in Fig. 8, it will be predicted from neighboring pixels of the CU or block 220);
generating a second prediction sample of the second region in the current block based on the first prediction sample of the first region and at least one reference sample (e.g. see the second PU predicted from neighboring pixels including pixels of the first PU, paragraphs [0139]-[0140], [0157]-[0158]; thus for the other asymmetric block, e.g. 234A in Fig. 8, it will be predicted from neighboring pixels including pixels of 232A); and
reconstructing the current block based on the first and second prediction samples (e.g. see decoded video in Fig. 3, paragraph [0125], and see add the prediction data to decoded residual to reconstruct the current block, paragraph [0172]).
Although Guo discloses generating the first prediction sample of the first region in the current block based on the plurality of reference samples and generating the second prediction sample of the second region in the current block based on the first prediction sample of the first region and at least one reference sample, it is noted Guo differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose belonging to a reference sample group, the reference sample group being adjacent to the current block. Ko however, teaches belonging to a reference sample group, the reference sample group being adjacent to the current block (e.g. see Fig. 8 showing reference samples adjacent to the current block used in an intra-prediction, paragraphs [0355]-[0356]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Guo and Ko before him/her, to modify the unified partition mode table for intra-mode coding of Guo with the teachings of Ko in order to improve the accuracy and efficiency of prediction.
Regarding claim 17, although Guo discloses wherein the first prediction sample of the first region is generated based on the plurality of reference samples, it is noted Guo differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose generated based on an average value between the plurality of reference samples belonging to the reference sample group. Ko however, teaches generated based on an average value between the plurality of reference samples belonging to the reference sample group (e.g. see average of pixel values, paragraphs [0342], [0347]-[0348]; also see bidirectional intra-prediction that uses two reference pixels as shown in Fig. 20). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 16 applies here.
Regarding claim 18, although Guo discloses the plurality of reference samples, it is noted Guo differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein the reference sample group includes top reference samples and left reference sample adjacent to the current block (e.g. see Fig. 8 showing reference samples adjacent to the current block used in an intra-prediction, paragraphs [0355]-[0356]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 16 applies here.
Regarding claim 19, Guo further discloses wherein the second prediction sample is generated by using a reference sample located only in one of a vertical direction or a horizontal direction from the second prediction sample (e.g. see mode 1 or mode 2 in Fig. 5 and see paragraphs [0157]-[0158]).
Regarding claim 20, Guo further discloses wherein the first region in the current block includes a plurality of samples belonging to N sample columns or M sample rows, and wherein the second region in the current block is a region other than the first region in the current block (e.g. see asymmetric partitioning a coding unit CU or a block into two rectangles as illustrated in Fig. 8 for short distance intra prediction (SDIP) of the block, paragraphs [0155]-[0156]; for example, for block 220 a first PU is 16x64 pixels and a second PU is 48x64 pixels).
Regarding claim 21, Guo further discloses wherein N is less than a width of the current block and M is less than a height of the current block (e.g. see asymmetric partitioning a coding unit CU or a block into two rectangles as illustrated in Fig. 8 for short distance intra prediction (SDIP) of the block, paragraphs [0155]-[0156]; for example, for block 220 a first PU is 16x64 pixels and a second PU is 48x64 pixels, where 16 and/or 48 are less than 64).
Regarding claim 22, Guo further discloses wherein N or M is adaptively determined based on at least one of a size of the current block or a shape of the current block (e.g. see dimensions of the PUs N/2 and 3N/2 adaptively determined based on the size 2Nx2N, paragraphs [0155]-[0156]).
Regarding claims 23-24, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10630977 B2, Yoo et al., Method And Apparatus For Encoding/decoding A Video Signal
US 2019/0281289 A1, Zhao et al., METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR DIRECTIONAL INTRA PREDICTION IN VIDEO COMPRESSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619