DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 02/19/2025, wherein claims 1-20 are pending are examined as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 02/19/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s note
4. Claim 20 (i.e. “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 a bitstream and the process is 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 merely 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 “computer-readable 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 serves 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 any prior art which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream. Please see details below.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears the phrase “is same” in the limitation “if the target LIC type is same as an original LIC type in a motion candidate…” (emphasis added) is missing an article. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is further objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “target LIC type” and “original LIC type” are ambiguous as claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
6. The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 Longi, 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 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 18, 19, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable overs claims 1, 4, 7, 13-14, and 17 of copending Application No. 19/177,458 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as 458. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed features of 458 anticipate those in the instant application since they are also directed to a plurality of local illumination compensation (LIC) types comprising different LIC models for performing a conversion based on LIC.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-14 and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: during reordering of a motion list associated with the video unit, determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample, and/or wherein determining a LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises:” (emphasis added). Since the limitation discloses “the LIC type”, followed by “a LIC type”, it is not entirely clear whether the determined LIC type corresponds to two different LIC types or one LIC type. For this reason, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Regarding claims 12-14, claims 12-14 depend on claim 11, and therefore include all of its features. As such, claims 12-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “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…”, however, as written, it is unclear whether this is to be read as a computer-readable recording medium claim or a method claim. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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) 1-2, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. US 2019/0260996 A1, hereinafter referred to as Zhang, where Zhang describes techniques related to an improvement on the local illumination compensation in block-based video coding (e.g. ¶0005). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 1, given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Zhang teaches and/or suggests “A method of video processing, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a Local illumination compensation (LIC) type of the video unit [As noted on pg. 49 of the filed specification, LIC type A and LIC type B may refer to enabling and disabling LIC for the video unit, respectively. As such, see for e.g. ¶0149 of Zhang (US 2019/0260996 A1) regarding applying (i.e. enabling) and not applying (i.e. disabling) LIC] based on at least one neighboring reconstructed sample of the video unit [See for e.g. ¶0149 along with figs. 16 and 18 (and associated text). If a current block of a current LCU has neighboring samples adjacent above or adjacent left outside of said LCU, then LIC is applied. Else, LIC is not applied.]; and performing the conversion based on the LTC type.” [If LIC is enabled, then LIC sample unit (figs. 0183 and 0185) generates a prediction block of the current block using the derived linear model. Else if not enabled, prediction is performed without said LIC sample unit. Note encoder 20 and decoder 30 in figs. 19 and 20, respectively.]
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample of the video unit comprise at least one of: a first reconstrued sample adjacent to the video unit [See above (78) and left (80) neighboring samples (i.e. adjacent) of current block depicted in for e.g. fig. 16], or a first reconstrued sample non-adjacent to the video unit.” [See neighboring samples that are further removed from said current block (i.e. non-adjacent) depicted in for e.g. fig. 17]
Regarding claim 17, The method of claim 1, Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream.” [Note encoder 20 and decoder 30 in figs. 19 and 20, respectively]
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the hardware and software, please see for e.g. ¶0055 and ¶0193-¶0194 of Zhang for support.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the hardware and software, please see for e.g. ¶0055 and ¶0193-¶0194 of Zhang for support.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the hardware and software, please see for e.g. ¶0055 and ¶0193-¶0194 of Zhang for support.
Claim 20 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2020/0275118 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang, since this is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream (MPEP §2113). For the reasons given above in the examiner’s note, the storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the storage medium. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang below which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Regarding claim 20, Wang teaches and/or suggests “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:” [For the reasons given above, please see for e.g. ¶0048 for storing encoded video data (i.e. bitstream) via a storage device. Also note ¶0250] determining a Local illumination compensation (LIC) type of a video unit of the video based on at least one neighboring reconstructed sample of the video unit; and generating the bitstream based on the LIC type.” [The aforementioned limitation is not given patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05(III)]
To help advance prosecution, it is recommended that “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:” be rewritten to also include “instructions that when executed by a processor, the instructions cause the processor to perform the method…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Chen US 2025/0274593 A1 (with reference to Provisional application No. 63/331,148), hereinafter referred to as Chen. Please note the Provisional application provides priority support for the following claims.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang however does not appear to address the features of claim 3. Although Zhang can determine “the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample of the video unit” as discussed in claim 1 above, Zhang does not appear to do so based on a template as required in claim 3. Chen on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is found to teach and/or support “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample of the video unit comprises: determining a template comprising the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample [See fig. 2 regarding a reference block template of neighboring reconstructed samples. Also note the reference samples of said template in the updated model shown in figs. 3-4 and associated text]; and determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the template.” [Based on the values of the reference samples of said template, the original model (one LIC type) can be adjusted, which can be construed as a model different than the original one (i.e. a second LIC type)] Recognizing multiple LIC types may refer to different LIC models with adjustment parameters (see for e.g. pgs. 49-50 of filed specification), Chen’s method for performing illumination compensation (e.g. abstract) is deemed relevant. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work of Zhang to add the teachings of Chen as above for enabling the number of linear models to be increased in order to further improve the coding efficiency of the local illumination compensation (LIC). See e.g. ¶0064.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Zhang does not address the features of claim 4, the work of Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the template [See claim 3 above] comprises: determining a first prediction of the template by applying a first LIC type to the template; determining a second prediction of the template by applying a second LTC type to the template; and determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the first prediction and the second prediction.” [With respect to the slope adjustment process shown in fig. 4, see ¶0059, where predictions for each adjusted slope parameter may be performed and subsequently evaluated via a cost function for determining the optimal slope adjustment] The motivation for combining Zhang and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Zhang does not address the features of claim 5, the work of Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the first prediction and the second prediction comprises: determining the LIC type of the video unit based on at least one of: a first cost between a reconstruction of the template and the first prediction; and a second cost between the reconstruction of the template and the second prediction.” [See ¶0059 of Chen regarding evaluating the optimal LIC slope adjustment parameter via a cost function] The motivation for combining Zhang and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Zhang does not address the features of claim 6, the work of Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on at least one of the first cost between the reconstruction of the template and the first prediction and the second cost between the reconstruction of the template and the second prediction comprises: determining whether to apply the first LIC type or the second LIC type to the video unit based one at least one of the first cost and the second cost.” [See ¶0059 of Chen regarding evaluating the optimal LIC slope adjustment parameter via a cost function] The motivation for combining Zhang and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Zhang does not address the features of claim 7, the work of Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein determining whether to apply the first LIC type or the second LIC type to the video unit based one at least one of the first cost and the second cost comprises: if the first cost is less than the second cost, determining that the first LIC type is applied to the video unit; or if the second cost is less than the first cost, determining that the second LIC type is applied to the video unit.” [See ¶0059 of Chen regarding evaluating the optimal LIC slope adjustment parameter via a cost function. The one with the minimum cost may be chosen as the final slope adjustment parameter] The motivation for combining Zhang and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the first LIC type indicates enabling LIC for the video unit; and/or wherein the second LIC type indicates disabling LIC for the video unit.” [Please refer to citations in claim 1 for support]
Regarding claim 9, Zhang and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Zhang does not address the features of clam 9, the work of Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the template comprises: determining multiple LIC types of the video unit based on the template.” [The dependency of LIC types (given its BRI) on the template can be found in the adjusted LIC models of Chen (e.g. fig. 4), where each slope adjustment parameter represents an LIC type. The dependency can also be found with respect to multi-model LIC (e.g. ¶0064-¶0066), where each model can also be considered an LIC type.] The motivation for combining Zhang and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 9, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Zhang does not address the features of claim 10, the work of Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein the multiple LIC types indicate multiple different LIC models, and/or wherein the multiple LIC types indicate different parameters of a LIC model, and/or wherein the multiple LIC types indicate the multiple different LTC models with at least one adjustment parameter for at least one parameter of LIC.” [Given the adjusted LIC models illustrated in fig. 4, and the disclosed multi-model LIC method in ¶0064-¶0066, Chen’s teachings are deemed relevant] The motivation for combining Zhang and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Zhang does not appear to address the features of claim 11, the work of Chen from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support the following limitations in light of the ‘or’ condition in the phrase “and/or”, i.e. “wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: during reordering of a motion list associated with the video unit, determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample, and/or wherein determining a LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: before a motion refinement of the video unit, determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample, and/or wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: determining the LTC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample and a syntax element, and/or wherein determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample comprises: determining a cost corresponding to a target LIC type based on the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample [See ¶0059 of Chen with respect to determining a cost for each possible LIC slope adjustment parameter (fig. 4), where each adjustment corresponds to an adjusted LIC model (i.e. a target LIC type)] ; and determining the LIC type of the video unit based on the cost. [The slope adjustment parameter that yields the minimum cost results in a determined LIC model having the desired parameters (¶0059)] The motivation for combining Zhang and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Claim 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Chen, and in further view of Urban et al. US 2022/0116621 A1, hereinafter referred to as Urban.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 11, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang and Chen however do not appear to address the features of clam 12. On the other hand the work of Urban from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein the motion refinement comprises DMVR, multi-pass DMVR and/or template matching.” [See for e.g. fig. 5 with respect to DMVR for motion vector refinement] Given Urban’s teachings for motion vector derivation in video coding (e.g. abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work of both Zhang and Chen to add the teachings of Urban as above in order to provide a means for improving motion vector refinement when illumination compensation is activated. See e.g. ¶0087.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang and Chen teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 11, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang and Chen however do not appear to address the features of clam 13. On the other hand the work of Urban from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “further comprising: adjusting the cost based on coding information for determining the LIC type of the video unit.” [Given the BRI of “coding information”, fig. 12 of Urban checks whether DMVR conditions apply for determining whether LIC is enabled (one LIC type) or not enabled (another LIC type). In ¶0171-¶0176, a cost function is modified] The motivation for combining Zhang and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 12, above.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Kim et al. US 2024/0406410 A1 (with reference to Priority Data KR 10-2021-0117969), hereinafter referred to as Kim. Please note, the figures found in the priority data correspond to figures 1-20 of the U.S. Publication.
Regarding claim 15, Zhang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang however does not appear to address the features of clam 15. On the other hand, the work of Kim from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein whether the video unit is coded with multiple partitioning parts or the video unit is coded with position-dependent weighting values is determined, and in accordance with a determination that the video unit is coded with the multiple partitioning parts or the video unit is coded with the position-dependent weighting values, LIC is applied to at least one part of the video unit.” [With respect to the disclosed multiple partitioning parts (GPM mode) shown in fig. 16 (i.e. partition 1 and 2), an LIC method may be applied (e.g. ¶0171)] Given Kim’s teachings for motion vector derivation in video coding (e.g. abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the work of Zhang to add the teachings of Kim as above in order to provide a method for efficiently processing a video signal. See e.g. ¶0027.
Regarding claim 16, Zhang and Kim teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 15, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhang however does not appear to address the features of clam 16. On the other hand, the work of Kim from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or support “wherein determining that the video unit is coded with the multiple partitioning parts or the video unit is coded with the position-dependent weighting values [See claim 15 with respect to the partitions shown in for e.g. fig. 16. This is also depicted in fig. 15] comprises: in accordance with a determination that the video unit is coded with GPM [With respect to figs. 15-16, GPM mode is applied], determining that the video unit is coded with the multiple partitioning parts or the video unit is coded with the position-dependent weighting values [Same as above with respect to GPM mode], and/or wherein the video unit is coded with the multiple partitioning parts [GPM mode is applied], and wherein applying the LIC to the at least one part of the video unit [Fig. 16 discloses applying the LIC method], comprises: applying the LIC to at least one target part among the multiple partitioning parts.” [As shown, LIC is applied to each partition of the two partitions depicted]
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claim 14 is 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. Please note that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) first must be addressed. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
14. The method of claim 13, wherein adjusting the cost based on the coding information for determining the LIC type of the video unit comprising: if the target LIC type is same as an original LIC type in a motion candidate, adjusting the cost of the target LIC type, and/or wherein adjusting the cost based on the coding information for determining the LIC type of the video unit comprises: adjusting the cost of the target LIC type based on at least a neighboring video unit of the video unit.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional prior art. For e.g., Li et al. US 11,146,800 B2 disclose an LIC flag as being ON or OFF, corresponding to the LIC mode being enabled or not enabled, respectively. As such, and according to the filed specification (e.g. pgs. 48-49), Li et al. describes two possible LIC types. Also see Chubach et al. WO 2024/032672 A, which disclose using multiple reference lines of the current block for estimating LIC parameters of the LIC mode (e.g. abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486