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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 02/14/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2025.The submission is following the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6, 12, 14 and 20 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.
Double Patenting
The Obviousness double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Langi, 759 F.2d 887,225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937,214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CPR l.32l(c) or l.32l(d) may
be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717 .02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CPR l.32l(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B. l. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CPR 1.11 l(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CPR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CPR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, to refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatented over claims 1-20 of U.S, Patent No US-12231622-B2.
Although the claims of the instant application are not identical, to those of the referenced patent, they are not patentably distinct therefrom. The difference between the claim sets are merely in terminology, as illustrated in the claim comparison table below, and do not result in any patentable distinction.
Accordingly, the instant claims are considered to be an obvious variation of the claims of the cited patent.
To overcome this rejection, a terminal disclaimer must be filed. The terminal disclaimer must disclaim any term of the instant application that would extends beyond the term of the referenced patent and must include the required common ownership and enforceable provisions under C.F.R. § 1.321.
The following table provides an exemplary comparison between representative claims, and shows that the difference are merely in wording and do not constitute a patentable distinction.
19/053,969
(Instant Application)
17/982,126
(US Patent US-12231622-B2)
EXEMPLARY CLAIM 1
CLAIM 1
Claim 1. A method performed by at least one processor in a video decoder, the method comprising:
receiving a coded video bitstream including a current picture that includes at least one block;
determining that the at least one block is to be predicted in a reconstruction-reordered intra block copy (RR-IBC) mode;
obtaining a syntax element from the at least one block, the syntax element indicating a flip mode;
determining whether reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block;
in response to determining the reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block, predicting a flip pattern for the at least one block based on neighboring reconstruction samples of the at least block and a corresponding reference block of the at least one block; and
decoding the at least one block based on the flip mode and the predicted flip pattern.
Claim 1: A method performed by at least one processor in a video decoder, the method comprising:
receiving a coded video bitstream including a current picture that includes at least one block and obtaining a syntax element from the at least one block, the syntax element indicating a flip mode;
determining that the at least one block is to be predicted in a reconstruction-reordered intra block copy (RR-IBC) mode;
applying reconstruction flip to the at least one block by predicting a flip pattern for the at least one block based on neighboring reconstruction samples of the at least one block and a corresponding reference block of the at least one block; and
decoding the at least one block based on the flip mode and the predicted flip pattern,
wherein the at least one block includes a template that includes neighboring reconstructed samples on at least two sides of the at least one block.
Claims 2-20 list all the same elements of claims 2-20. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection applies equally as well to claims
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20170070748 A1) hereinafter “Li” in view of Lim et al (US 20220321885 A1) hereinafter “Lim”.
Regarding claim 1 Li-Lim
Li discloses 1. A method ([0018] method) performed by at least one processor (processing units 110,115 Fig. 1) in a video decoder (Li, [0008] “A corresponding decoder”), the method comprising:
receiving a coded video bitstream (Li, [0008] “A corresponding decoder receives encoded data in a bitstream”) including a current picture that includes at least one block; (Li, [0081]“The encoder (500) receives a sequence of video pictures including a current picture as an input video signal (505) and produces encoded data in a coded video bitstream (595) as output. [0126] FIG. 8a shows a current block (860) in a current picture (810).”)
determining that the at least one block is to be predicted in a reconstruction-reordered intra block copy (RR-IBC) mode; (Li, [0003] Intra block copy (“BC”) is a prediction mode under development for H.265/HEVC extensions. [0016] “A corresponding decoder receives from a bitstream encoded data including a flag indicating that a current block (e.g., coding unit, prediction unit) in a picture is encoded using intra BC prediction in skip mode.”)
obtaining a syntax element from the at least one block, the syntax element indicating a flip mode; (Li, [0008] “: the indication is one or more syntax elements in the bitstream, which can be signaled for the current block or for a larger block that includes the current block. The syntax element(s) can be flags, each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping.” [0009] “The decoder determines the intra BC prediction region for the current block based on the reference region in the picture. The intra BC prediction region is flipped (e.g., horizontally and/or vertically) relative to the reference region.”)
Li does not explicitly disclose
determining whether reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block;
in response to determining the reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block, predicting a flip pattern for the at least one block based on neighboring reconstruction samples of the at least block and a corresponding reference block of the at least one block; and
decoding the at least one block based on the flip mode and the predicted flip pattern.
However, Lim discloses
determining whether reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block; .
(Lim, [0838] “At least one of representation, construction, reconstruction, prediction or encoding/decoding of the quantization matrix may be performed by applying at least one of horizontal flipping, vertical flipping or sign change to at least one of quantization matrices.”)
in response to determining the reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block, predicting a flip pattern for the at least one block based on neighboring reconstruction samples of the at least block and a corresponding reference block of the at least one block; (Lim, [0844] “In addition, for example, at least one of horizontal flipping, vertical flipping or sign change may be applied to at least one of quantization matrices used in a DST-7 based transform to derive a quantization matrix used in a DCT-8 based transform, thereby performing at least one of representation, construction, reconstruction, prediction or encoding/ decoding of the quantization matrix. [0227] Intra encoding and/or decoding may be performed by using a reference sample of a neighbor block of the current block. A neighbor block may be a reconstructed neighbor block. For example, intra encoding and/or decoding may be performed by using a coding parameter or a value of a reference sample included in a reconstructed neighbor block. “i.e., flipping pattern is either horizontal or vertical flip) and
decoding the at least one block based on the flip mode and the predicted flip pattern. (Lim, [0844] “In addition, for example, at least one of horizontal flipping, vertical flipping or sign change may be applied…thereby performing at least one of representation, construction, reconstruction, prediction or encoding/decoding of the quantization matrix.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Li with Lim to create the system of Li as outlined above to determine whether reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block as suggested by Lim.
The reasoning is that “In particular, block flipping can improve coding efficiency for text characters of screen capture content.” (Li, [0123])
Regarding claim 2 Li-Lim
Li-Lim discloses 2. The method according to claim 1,
wherein the predicted flip pattern is one of a horizontal flip pattern, a vertical flip pattern, and a no flip pattern. (Li, [0125] “FIGS. 8a-8d, 9a-9c and 10a-10c illustrate examples of block flipping in intra BC prediction.” [0154] “The decoder can similarly decode other intra-BC-predicted blocks on a block-by-block basis for a slice, tile or picture, with or without block flipping.” i.e., with possible values indicating vertical flipping, horizontal flipping, or no flipping).
Regarding claim 7 Li-Lim
Li-Lim discloses 7. The method according to claim 2,
wherein a selected flip pattern is the predicted flip pattern based on a determination the coded video bitstream includes information that indicates using the predicted flip pattern. (Li, ([0008] “A corresponding decoder receives encoded data in a bitstream. The encoded data includes an indication whether an intra BC prediction region for a current block (e.g., coding unit, prediction unit) in a picture is flipped relative to a reference region in the picture. For example, the indication is one or more syntax elements in the bitstream, which can be signaled for the current block or for a larger block that includes the current block. The syntax element(s) can be flags, each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping. The syntax element(s) can be jointly coded with another syntax element or separately signaled.”)
Regarding claim 8 Li-Lim
Li-Lim discloses 8. The method according to claim 2,
wherein a selected flip pattern is the no flip pattern on a determination the coded video bitstream includes information that indicates not to use the predicted flip pattern. (Li, ( [0008] “ A corresponding decoder receives encoded data in a bitstream. The encoded data includes an indication whether an intra BC prediction region for a current block (e.g., coding unit, prediction unit) in a picture is flipped relative to a reference region in the picture.” [0131] “The reference region (980) includes the text characters lb, as detailed in FIG. 9b. Without flipping, the reference region (980) is a poor predictor for the current block (960). If the reference region (980) is flipped horizontally, however, the flipped reference region (981) exactly matches the current block (960).” See that 960, without flipping, Fig. 9b)
Regarding claim 9 Li-Lim
Li discloses 9. A video decoder comprising (Li, [0008] “A corresponding decoder receives encoded data in a bitstream”):
at least one memory configured to store computer program code; and at least one processor configured to access the computer program code and operate as instructed by the computer program code, (Li, [0039] With reference to FIG. 1, the computing system (100) includes one or more processing units (110, 115) and memory (120, 125). The processing units (110, 115) execute computer-executable instructions. A processing unit can be a general-purpose central processing unit (“CPU”), processor in an application-specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”) or any other type of processor. In a multi-processing system, multiple processing units execute computer-executable instructions to increase processing power”), the computer program code including:
receiving code configured to cause the at least one processor to receive a coded video bitstream (Li, [0008] “A corresponding decoder receives encoded data in a bitstream.”) including a current picture that includes at least one block, (Li, [0081] “The encoder (500) receives a sequence of video pictures including a current picture as an input video signal (505) and produces encoded data in a coded video bitstream (595) as output.” [0126] “FIG. 8a shows a current block (860) in a current picture (810).”)
first determining code configured to cause the at least one processor to determine that the at least one block is to be predicted in a reconstruction-reordered intra block copy (RR-IBC) mode, (Li, [0003] “Intra block copy (“BC”) is a prediction mode under development for H.265/HEVC extensions.” [0016] “A corresponding decoder receives from a bitstream encoded data including a flag indicating that a current block (e.g., coding unit, prediction unit) in a picture is encoded using intra BC prediction in skip mode.”)
obtaining code configured to cause the at least one processor to obtain a syntax element from the at least one block, the syntax element indicating a flip mode, (Li, [0008]” the indication is one or more syntax elements in the bitstream, which can be signaled for the current block or for a larger block that includes the current block. The syntax element(s) can be flags, each flag indicating a decision for a direction of flipping.”)
Li does not explicitly disclose
second determining code configured to cause the at least one processor to determine whether reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block,
predicting code configured to cause the at least one processor to, in response to determining the reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block, determine a flip pattern for the at least one block based on neighboring reconstruction samples of the at least block and a corresponding reference block of the at least one block, and
decoding code configured to cause the at least one processor to decode the at least one block based on the flip mode and the predicted flip pattern.
However, Lim discloses
second determining code configured to cause the at least one processor to (Lim, [1055]” FIG. 1. In addition, one or more processors may perform commands for implementing the steps”), determine whether reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block, (Lim, [0838] “At least one of representation, construction, reconstruction, prediction or encoding/decoding of the quantization matrix may be performed by applying at least one of horizontal flipping, vertical flipping or sign change to at least one of quantization matrices.”)
predicting code configured to cause the at least one processor to (Lim, [1055]”FIG. 1. In addition, one or more processors may perform commands for implementing the steps”), in response to determining the reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block, determine a flip pattern for the at least one block based on neighboring reconstruction samples of the at least block and a corresponding reference block of the at least one block, (Lim, [0844] “In addition, for example, at least one of horizontal flipping, vertical flipping or sign change may be applied to at least one of quantization matrices used in a DST-7 based transform to derive a quantization matrix used in a DCT-8 based transform, thereby performing at least one of representation, construction, reconstruction, prediction or encoding/ decoding of the quantization matrix. [0227] Intra encoding and/or decoding may be performed by using a reference sample of a neighbor block of the current block. A neighbor block may be a reconstructed neighbor block. For example, intra encoding and/or decoding may be performed by using a coding parameter or a value of a reference sample included in a reconstructed neighbor block. “ i.e., flipping pattern is either horizontal or vertical flip) and
decoding code configured to cause the at least one processor to (Lim, [1055]”FIG. 1. In addition, one or more processors may perform commands for implementing the steps”), decode the at least one block based on the flip mode and the predicted flip pattern. (Lim, [0844] “In addition, for example, at least one of horizontal flipping, vertical flipping or sign change may be applied…thereby performing at least one of representation, construction, reconstruction, prediction or encoding/decoding of the quantization matrix.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Li with Lim to create the system of Li as outlined above to determine whether reconstruction flip is applied to the at least one block as suggested by Lim.
The reasoning is that “ in particular, block flipping can improve coding efficiency for text characters of screen capture content.” ( Li, [0123])
Claims 3,11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li-Lim in view of Xiu et al (US 20200045336 A1) hereinafter “Xiu”.
Regarding claim 3 Li-Lim-Xiu
Li-Lim discloses 3. The method according to claim 2,
Li-Lim does not explicitly disclose
wherein the predicting the flip pattern includes calculating a template distortion for each flip pattern, and
wherein the predicted flip pattern is the flip pattern having a minimum distortion.
However, Xiu discloses
wherein the predicting the flip pattern includes calculating a template distortion for each flip pattern, ( Xiu, [0059] “In FIG. 12, when IC is applied for a block, a least mean square error (LMSE) may be employed to derive the parameters ‘a’ and ‘b’ by minimizing the distortion between the neighboring samples of the current block (e.g., the template) and their corresponding reference samples in the temporal reference picture. As illustrated in FIG. 12, the template may be subsampled (e.g., 2:1 subsampling). For example, the shaded samples in FIG. 12 may be used to derive ‘a’ and ‘b’. Based on the derived scaling factor ‘a’ and offset ‘b’, the prediction samples of the current block may be adjusted, “ see that Fig. 12 ) and
wherein the predicted flip pattern is the flip pattern having a minimum distortion.
(Xiu,[0059] “In FIG. 12, when IC is applied for a block, a least mean square error (LMSE) may be employed to derive the parameters ‘a’ and ‘b’ by minimizing the distortion between the neighboring samples of the current block (e.g., the template)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Li-Lim with Kim to create the system of Li-Lim as outlined above to minimizing the distortion between the neighboring samples of the current block as suggested by Lim.
The reasoning is that “template-matching may be used to derive motion information of the current block by finding the match (e.g., best match) between a template (e.g., top and/or left neighboring blocks of the current block) in the current picture and a block (e.g., same size as the template) in a reference picture.” (Xiu, [0061])
Claims 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li-Lim in view of Kim et al (US 20220172404 A1) hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 5 Li-Lim-Kim
Li-Lim discloses 5. The method according to claim 2,
Li-Lim does not explicitly disclose
wherein the predicting the flip pattern includes calculating a smoothness score for each flip pattern, and
wherein the predicted flip pattern is the flip pattern having a highest smoothness score.
However, Kim discloses
wherein the predicting the flip pattern includes calculating a smoothness score (unit 140) for each flip pattern, (Kim, [0033] “The apparatus for fast refining segmentation 100 includes a grid segmentation unit 110, an edge cube search unit 120, a surrounding cube search unit 130, a smooth score calculation unit 140, and a projection plane index update unit 150. In addition, the apparatus for fast refining segmentation 100 includes one or more processors or memories (not shown) to perform refining segmentation.”) and
wherein the predicted flip pattern is the flip pattern having a highest smoothness score. (Kim, [0009] “ a smooth score calculation unit for calculating smooth scores for all the edge surrounding cubes and all the edge cubes; and a projection plane index update unit for obtaining a normal score based on the calculated smooth scores”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Li-Lim with Kim to create the system of Li-Lim as outlined above to have a smooth score calculation unit for calculating smooth scores for all the edge surrounding cubes and all the edge cubes as suggested by Kim.
The reasoning is to “to minimize deterioration of image quality while lowering the amount of computation and memory usage by refining not all grids, but only grids including edge portions in a method of V-PCC's 3D grid-based refining of segmentation.” (Kim, [0007])
Note: The motivation that was utilized in the rejection of claim 5, applies equally as well to claim 13.
Regarding claim 10,11,13,15 and 16
Claims 10,11,13,15 and 16 recite limitations that are substantially similar to those of dependent claims 2,3,5,7and 8 respectively, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2,3,5,7and 8 applies equally as well to claim 10,11,13,15 and 16. Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of “the video decoder “(Li, [0008] “A corresponding decoder receives encoded data in a bitstream”)
Regarding claim 17-19
Claim 17-19 lists all the same elements of claim 1-3 respectively. Accordingly, the rationale set forth above with the respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 applies equally to claims 17-19.
Furthermore, with respect to the limitation reciting “A non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor in a video decoder cause the processor to execute a method ” (Li, the computing system (100) includes one or more processing units (110, 115) and memory (120, 125). The processing units (110, 115) execute computer-executable instructions. A processing unit can be a general-purpose central processing unit (“CPU”), processor in an application-specific integrated circuit (“ASIC”) or any other type of processor.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE whose telephone number is (703)756-1441. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am-5:00 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922 . 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.
/ASTEWAYE GETTU ZEWEDE/Examiner, Art Unit 2481 /WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481