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 .
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 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.
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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-11,14,15,30, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg US 20220182644 in view of Iwamura US 20220182646.
Regarding claim 1, Sjoberg disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
An image decoding device comprising a circuit, wherein the circuit:
decodes control information and a quantized value (i.e. syntax elements (control information) and quantization states would be decoded from a bitstream.) [3,272,355; fig. 25];
performs inverse quantization on the quantized value to obtain a transformation coefficient (i.e. decoder performs inverse quantization and transformation) [3,126-127];
performs inverse transformation on the transformation coefficient to obtain a prediction residual (i.e. decoder performs inverse quantization and transformation. The decoder performs entropy decoding, inverse quantization and inverse transformation to obtain the residual, and then adds the residual to an intra or inter prediction to reconstruct a picture.) [3,126-127];
generates a first prediction pixel based on a decoded pixel and the control information (i.e. The decoder performs entropy decoding, inverse quantization and inverse transformation to obtain the residual, and then adds the residual to an intra or inter prediction to reconstruct a picture.) [3,97,106];
generates a second prediction pixel based on the accumulated decoded pixel and the control information (i.e. predicting sample values in B2 from sample values in B1. This would involve syntax elements) [118-124];
synthesizes an arbitrary combination including at least one of the first predicted pixel and the second predicted pixel with each of small regions divided by a plurality of line segments on a basis of the control information to obtain a third predicted pixel (i.e. arbitrary partitions created having regions divided by line segments based on flag information.) [276-277,284; fig. 9a,b,11]; and
adds one of the first predicted pixel, the second predicted pixel, and the third predicted pixel and the prediction residual to obtain the decoded pixel (i.e. predicted pixel and residual information used decode pixels) [3].
Sjoberg do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
However, in the same field of endeavor Iwamura discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
accumulates the decoded pixel (i.e. decoder obtains pixel from the transformer and combines with prediction information from the predictor 250 and stores in the memory. This pixel information stored is used multiple times in the predictor.) [47,49; fig. 9];
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sjoberg with Iwamura to accumulate the decoded pixel.
It would be advantageous because "The present invention therefore provides an encoding device, a decoding device and a program that improve image quality and encoding efficiency by appropriately controlling a deblocking filter.” [12].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sjoberg with Iwamura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit sets a number of line segments to a fixed value (i.e. Templates may, for example but not limited to these examples, be signaled in a parameter set such as picture parameter set, or templates may be fixed templates which do not need to be signaled.) [190].
Regarding claim 3, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit variably sets a number of line segments (i.e. border is arbitrarily made and would vary depending on the content.) [43].
Regarding claim 4, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit limits a positional relationship among the plurality of line segments (i.e. line segments are only horizontal or vertical) [fig. 9a,b,11].
Regarding claim 5, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit limits angles of the plurality of line segments (i.e. line segments are only horizontal or vertical) [fig. 9a,b,11].
Regarding claim 6, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit limits a first line segment only in a horizontal direction or a vertical direction (i.e. line segments are only horizontal or vertical) [fig. 9a,b,11].
Regarding claim 7, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit limits an (n+1) th line segment only in a direction perpendicular to an nth line segment (i.e. line segments are only horizontal or vertical) [fig. 9a,b,11].
Regarding claim 8, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit limits such that an arrangement that can be realized by existing block division cannot be selected (i.e. line segments are only horizontal or vertical) [fig. 9a,b,11].
Regarding claim 9, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit selects the plurality of line segments from among patterns divided in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction at a plurality of partition points (i.e. line segments are only horizontal or vertical) [fig. 9a,b,11].
Regarding claim 10, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit fixedly sets a method for limiting the plurality of line segments (i.e. Templates may, for example but not limited to these examples, be signaled in a parameter set such as picture parameter set, or templates may be fixed templates which do not need to be signaled.) [190].
Regarding claim 11, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit variably sets a method for limiting the plurality of line segments (i.e. border is arbitrarily made and would vary depending on the content. This would involve limiting) [43].
Regarding claim 14, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit fixedly sets a number of partition points regardless of a size of a decoding target block by changing an arrangement of the partition points of the small region (i.e. border is arbitrarily made and would vary depending on the content and does so regardless of size.) [43].
Regarding claim 15, Sjoberg meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit applies a common weighted average to the plurality of line segments when performing weighted averaging on each of predicted pixels for a first small region and a second small region of a decoding target block divided by the plurality of line segments according to distances from the plurality of line segments (i.e. For samples located around the edges of two neighboring partitions, blending (e.g., weighted average of two prediction blocks) may be applied.) [383].
Claim 30 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 31 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg and Iwamura in view of Liu US 20160212446.
Regarding claim 12, Sjoberg and Iwamura do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the circuit sets a different method for limiting the plurality of line segments according to a size of a decoding target block.
However, in the same field of endeavor Liu discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the circuit sets a different method for limiting the plurality of line segments according to a size of a decoding target block (i.e. regions define based on the size of the region) [113,117,119; fig. 3,4].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Liu to have the circuit sets a different method for limiting the plurality of line segments according to a size of a decoding target block.
It would be advantageous because selecting the region accord to the size would produce a more accurate resulting prediction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Liu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Liu meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit arranges partition points of the small region for each constant pixel (i.e. partition arranged for each constant pixel) [fig. 3,4].
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg and Iwamura in view of Hannuksela US 20220094909.
Regarding claim 16, Sjoberg and Iwamura do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the circuit applies a different weighted average to each of the plurality of line segments when performing weighted averaging on each of predicted pixels for a first small region and a second small region of a decoding target block divided by the plurality of line segments according to distances from the plurality of line segments.
However, in the same field of endeavor Hannuksela discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the circuit applies a different weighted average to each of the plurality of line segments when performing weighted averaging on each of predicted pixels for a first small region and a second small region of a decoding target block divided by the plurality of line segments according to distances from the plurality of line segments (i.e. Interpolation along each line segment connecting the border sample of the sample row and the border sample of the sample column from the adjacent unfolded cube faces that have the same distance to the corner sample. The interpolation can be done as a weighted average proportional to the inverse of the distance to the border sample) [580].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Hannuksela to have the circuit applies a different weighted average to each of the plurality of line segments when performing weighted averaging on each of predicted pixels for a first small region and a second small region of a decoding target block divided by the plurality of line segments according to distances from the plurality of line segments.
It would be advantageous because "Random-access sub-pictures for the ROI sub-picture sequences may be predicted from the base sub-picture sequence. Since the base sub-picture sequence is consistently received and decoded, random-access sub-picture interval (i.e., the SAP interval) for the base sub-picture sequence can be longer than that for ROI sub-picture sequences. The encoding method facilitates switching to requesting and/or receiving and/or decoding another ROI sub-picture sequence at a SAP position of that ROI sub-picture sequence. No intra-coded sub-picture at that ROI sub-picture sequence is required to start the decoding of that ROI sub-picture sequence, and consequently compression efficiency is improved compared to a conventional approach.” [459].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Hannuksela to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg and Iwamura in view of Kidani US 20210185354.
Regarding claim 17, Sjoberg and Iwamura do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the circuit selects a weighting factor from among a plurality of weighting factors according to at least one of a length of a short side, a length of a long side, a size, or an aspect ratio of a decoding target block, or a type of a partitioning mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor Kidani discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the circuit selects a weighting factor from among a plurality of weighting factors according to at least one of a length of a short side, a length of a long side, a size, or an aspect ratio of a decoding target block, or a type of a partitioning mode (i.e. second circuit changes a weight value of a weight coefficient matrix used in the weighted averaging based on a number of the adjacent block or a size of the prediction target block.) [14].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Kidani to have the circuit selects a weighting factor from among a plurality of weighting factors according to at least one of a length of a short side, a length of a long side, a size, or an aspect ratio of a decoding target block, or a type of a partitioning mode.
It would be advantageous because “According to the present invention, it is possible to provide an image decoding device, an image encoding device, an image decoding method, and a program capable of suppressing increase in the memory bandwidth and the number of times of calculations required in OBMC application and realizing improvement in encoding performance by adding determination (restriction) to application conditions of OBMC based on the size of the prediction target block, the type of the prediction directions, and the type of the prediction direction of the adjacent block.” [21].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Kidani to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Kidani meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The image decoding device according to claim 15, wherein the circuit selects a weighting factor from among a plurality of weighting factors according to a size of the first small region A or the second small region (i.e. second circuit changes a weight value of a weight coefficient matrix used in the weighted averaging based on a number of the adjacent block or a size of the prediction target block.) [14].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg and Iwamura in view of Choi US 20210344929.
Regarding claim 18, Sjoberg and Iwamura do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the circuit selects a weighting factor from among a plurality of weighting factors according to a type of an intra prediction mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor Choi discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the circuit selects a weighting factor from among a plurality of weighting factors according to a type of an intra prediction mode (i.e. weighting selected based on an intra prediction type) [363].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Choi to have the circuit selects a weighting factor from among a plurality of weighting factors according to a type of an intra prediction mode.
It would be advantageous because [0021]” Accuracy of an intra prediction method is enhanced according to the intra prediction method provided in the disclosure, such that video coding efficiency may be improved”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Choi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg and Iwamura in view of Aono US 20210136407.
Regarding claim 20, Sjoberg and Iwamura do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the circuit selects a weighting factor from among a plurality of weighting factors according to a number of pixels of the plurality of line segments.
However, in the same field of endeavor Aono discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the circuit selects a weighting factor from among a plurality of weighting factors according to a number of pixels of the plurality of line segments [566].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Aono to have the circuit selects a weighting factor from among a plurality of weighting factors according to a number of pixels of the plurality of line segments.
It would be advantageous because [0020] “According to an aspect of the invention, a scheme is introduced that simplifies the hierarchy structure of coded data and also ensures independence of coding and decoding of each rectangular slice for each individual tool. Accordingly, each rectangular slice can be independently coded and decoded while suppressing a decrease in the coding efficiency. By controlling the intra insertion timing, the maximum code amount per picture can be reduced and the processing load can be suppressed. As a result, the region required for display or the like can be selected and decoded, so that the amount of processing can be greatly reduced”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Aono to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Claim(s) 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg and Iwamura in view of Chuang US20170374369.
Regarding claim 24, Sjoberg and Iwamura do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the circuit derives an intra prediction mode according to DIMD using only a region of a reference pixel facing across a left or upper block boundary of a decoding target block with respect to the first small region or the second small region.
However, in the same field of endeavor Chuang discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the circuit derives an intra prediction mode according to DIMD using only a region of a reference pixel facing across a left or upper block boundary of a decoding target block with respect to the first small region or the second small region (i.e. segment 62 that is used for DIMD) [80; fig. 6].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Chuang to have the circuit derives an intra prediction mode according to DIMD using only a region of a reference pixel facing across a left or upper block boundary of a decoding target block with respect to the first small region or the second small region.
It would be advantageous because "[0006] An intra gradient filter is applied to samples at the left and top boundaries of the current block in the third step if the intra prediction mode is DC, horizontal, or vertical mode. The concept of applying the intra gradient filter is to utilize the gradient information along the intra prediction direction to improve the quality of the intra predictor. The samples in the first row and first column of the current block are filtered by the intra gradient filter when the selected intra prediction mode is DC mode. The samples in the first row are filtered by the intra gradient filter when the selected intra prediction mode is horizontal mode, and the samples in the first column are filtered by the intra gradient filter if the selected intra prediction mode is vertical mode.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Chuang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, Chuang disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
The image decoding device according to claim 1, wherein the circuit derives an intra prediction mode according to DIMD using all reference pixels in a case where there is no region of a reference pixel facing across a left or upper block boundary of a decoding target block with respect to the first small region or the second small region (i.e. segment 44 is used for DIMD) [10; fig. 4].
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoberg and Iwamura in view of Zhang US 20220132120.
Regarding claim 29, Sjoberg and Iwamura do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the circuit selects an intra prediction mode to be actually applied from a plurality of different intra prediction mode candidates included in an intra prediction mode candidate list (i.e. pred_mode_flag signals the determined prediction mode. Many prediction modes are discussed and include candidate lists where a candidate is chosen) [168,170].
However, in the same field of endeavor Zhang discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the circuit selects an intra prediction mode to be actually applied from a plurality of different intra prediction mode candidates included in an intra prediction mode candidate list (i.e. pred_mode_flag signals the determined prediction mode. Many prediction modes are discussed and include candidate lists where a candidate is chosen) [168,170].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Zhang to have the circuit selects an intra prediction mode to be actually applied from a plurality of different intra prediction mode candidates included in an intra prediction mode candidate list.
It would be advantageous because “[0880] It will be appreciated that the disclosed techniques may be embodied in video encoders or decoders to improve compression efficiency when the coding units being compressed have shaped that are significantly different than the traditional square shaped blocks or rectangular blocks that are half-square shaped. For example, new coding tools that use long or tall coding units such as 4×32 or 32×4 sized units may benefit from the disclosed techniques.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Sjoberg and Iwamura with Zhang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 29.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 21,22,23,26,27, and 28 is/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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights