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 .
Specification
The Abstract is objected to because it contains legal phraseology and language in the alternative. The Abstract recites, “Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a solution for video processing. A method for video processing is proposed.”
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.
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 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 & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 2023/0328276 A1 with Provisional 63/362,808) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, motion information and location information of at least one subblock of a temporal block in a collocated frame of the current video block [Paragraph [0083]-[0096], supported in Paragraphs [0074]-[0080] in Provisional, determining sub-CU-level motion information in a collocated sub-CU and its reference index/candidate block position/control point, as location information];
determining an affine candidate of the current video block by applying a regression process to the current video block based on the motion information and the location information of the at least one subblock [Paragraph [0103]-[0113] & [0178], supported in Paragraphs [0086]-[0104] & [0126]-[0129] in Provisional, deriving the affine merge candidate after the linear model parameters are derived from the linear regression process, using motion information and positions in SbTMVP]; and
performing the conversion based on the affine candidate [Paragraph [0090]-[0095], supported in Paragraphs [0033] & [0074]-[0079] in Provisional, encoder selects affine candidate, and signals index into bitstream].
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream, and/or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream [Paragraph [0082], supported in Paragraphs [0172] in Provisional, encoder signals index into bitstream].
Regarding claim 18, apparatus claim 18 is drawn to an apparatus having limitations similar to the method of processing using the same as claimed in claim 1 treated in the above rejections. Therefore apparatus claim 18 in the instant application corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses an apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon [Paragraph [0357]-[0359], supported in Paragraphs [0220]-[0222] in Provisional, memory processor]
Regarding claims 19-20, claims 19-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having limitations similar to the method of processing of using the same as claimed in claim 1 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims (19-20) correspond to method claim 1 and are rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions [Paragraph [0357]-[0359], supported in Paragraphs [0220]-[0222] in Provisional, memory processor]
Furthermore in claim 20, “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing, wherein the method comprises…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process are the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium 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 claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Zhang which recites in Paragraph [0040], supported in [0034] in provisional, memories 106, 120 may store encoded video data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-16 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 as outlined above.
Claims 2-16 contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The various claimed limitations mentioned in the claims are not taught or suggested by the prior art taken either singly or in combination, with emphasize that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights