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 § 112
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.
Claim 3-9, 16-17, and 20 are 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 claims 3, 16, 20 which recites “… wherein applying the transform-domain equation comprises refining T(P) such that T(P) * T(W) approaches T(P ּW) …” it is unclear what is meant by “… refining T(P) such that T(P) * T(W) approaches T(P ּW)…” clarification is requested.
Claims 3-9, and 17 are rejected based upon their claim dependency.
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 (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.
2. Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Kim et al., (U.S. Patent No. 2021/0160487 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the recitation of “ a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method …” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the encoding method. 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 encoding method). The structure includes the data in compressed form 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 1 merely serves as 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 scope of claim 18 is just a storage medium storing a bitstream and is anticipated by Kim et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0160487 A1, [0065-0066], where Kim teaches “… Interface 108 may include any device configured to receive a compliant video bitstream and transmit and/or store the compliant video bitstream to a communications medium. Interface 108 may include a network interface card, such as an Ethernet card, and may include an optical transceiver, a radio frequency transceiver, or any other type of device that can send and/or receive information. Further, interface 108 may include a computer system interface that may enable a compliant video bitstream to be stored on a storage device”).
Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 18.
Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 20.
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 (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, 10, 13-15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Xu et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0044166 A1).
As per claim 1, Xu teaches a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having a memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block (abstract, [0005], [0083] and fig. 8; “.. a method for decoding a frame in an encoded video stream, the frame having a plurality of blocks including a current block.”); obtaining an intra prediction for the current block (fig. 4 el. 406, [0031-0032], [0039], [0048-0049], [0083], “..at intra/inter prediction stage 306, each block can be encoded using either intra prediction…”);generating a refined intra prediction by applying a transform-domain equation to the intra prediction ([0020], [0084], [0089], [0091] and fig. 8 el. 808-812; “… in addition to performing spatial-domain intra prediction, intra prediction can be performed in the transform domain, in which the blocks of pixel values may be transformed into transform coefficients and intra prediction may be performed on the transformed coefficients”. In addition, the Examiner notes that it is inherent that a transform-domain prediction technique includes a transform-domain equation) and reconstructing the current block using the refined intra prediction ([0094]).
As per claim 2, Xu teaches wherein the refined intra prediction is generated using a set of known samples adjacent to the current block ([0089], fig. 6-7).
As per claim 10, Xu teaches wherein the transform-domain equation is applied with one or more constraints (fig. 8).
As per claim 13, Xu teaches wherein the intra prediction is obtained using one or more transform-domain techniques ([0030], [0049]).
As per claim 14, Xu teaches a method of video encoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving video data comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block (abstract, fig. 3, fig. 5 el. 502, and [0043], “.. receiving a frame of video data including a current block”), obtaining an intra prediction for the current block (fig. 3 el. 306 and [0031]); generating a refined intra prediction by applying a transform-domain equation to the intra prediction (fig. 3, fig. 5; [0020-0021], [0041], [0050-0051]); and encoding the current block using the refined intra prediction (fig. 3, fig. 5; [0020-0021], [0050-0051]).
As per claim 15, Xu teaches wherein the refined intra prediction is generated using a set of known samples adjacent to the current block (fig. 6-7; [0087-0089]).
As per claim 18, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream with the limitations of the method of video encoding as recite in claim 14, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 14 also applies here.
As per claim 19, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream with the limitations of the method of video encoding as recite in claim 15, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 15 also applies here.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., and in view of Sato et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0207907 A1).
As per claim 11, Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more constraints comprises a distortion constraint for one or more known samples.
However, Chien teaches wherein the one or more constraints comprises a distortion constraint for one or more known samples ([0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chien with Xu in order to yield the predictable results of improved image quality and improved image processing.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al., (U.S. Pub. No. and in view of Lei et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0045196 A1).
As per claim 12, Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more constraints comprise a directionality constraint.
However, Lei teaches wherein the one or more constraints comprises a directionality constraint (fig.3 and [0024], [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lei with Xu in order to yield the predictable results of improved image processing and increase of image quality.
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 (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, 10, 12-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lei et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0045196 A1).
As per claim 1, which is the corresponding method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors with the limitations of the method of video encoding as recited in claim 14, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 14 also applies here.
As per claim 2, which is the corresponding method of video decoding with the limitation of the method of video encoding as recited in claim 15, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 15 also applies here.
As per claim 10, Lei teaches wherein the transform-domain equation is applied with one or more constraints ([0027], If an intra-prediction 16×16 block is selected, an additional Hadamard transform is applied after the DCT at block 118”).
As per claim 12, Lei teaches wherein the one or more constraints comprise directionality constraint (fig.3 and [0024], [0032]).
As per claim 13, Lei teaches wherein the intra prediction is obtained using one or more transform-domain techniques ([0027]).
As per claim 14, Lei teaches a method of video encoding performed at a computing system having a memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving video data comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block (fig. 1 el. 102, [0023]), obtaining an intra prediction for the current block (fig. 1 el. 110; fig. 3; [0023-0024], [0027], [0032], [0036-0037]); generating a refined intra prediction by applying a transform-domain equation to the intra prediction ([0027], “… if an intra-prediction 16 x 16 block is selected, an additional Hadmard transform is applied after the DCT at block 118”. The Examiner notes that applying an additional Hadamard transform would necessitate using transform equations, thus it would be inherent that that Hadamard transform has a transform equation); and encoding the current block using the refined intra prediction (fig. 1 e. 122).
As per claim 15, Lei teaches wherein the refined intra prediction is generated using a set of known samples adjacent to the current block ([0023], [0032-033] and fig. 3).
As per claim 18, which is the corresponding computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method with the limitations of the method of video encoding performed at a computing system as recited in claim 14, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 14 also applies here.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lei et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0045196) and in view of Chien et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0261868 A1).
As per claim 11, Lei does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more constraints comprises a distortion constraint for one or more known samples.
However, Chien teaches wherein the one or more constraints comprises a distortion constraint for one or more known samples ([0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chien with Lei in order to yield the predictable results of improved image quality and improved image processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9, 16-17 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486