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 Objections
Claims 4 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4; this claim recites the limitations “a first scaling factor is to be applied in a horizontal and a second scaling factor is to be applied in a vertical direction.” The phrase “ in a horizontal” appears to be missing the word “direction.”
Regarding claim 16; this claim recites the limitations “wherein the processor further configured to execute instructions...” The phrase appears to be missing the word “is,” such that the intended language appear to be “wherein the processor is further configured to execute instructions...”
Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 1-9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this recites the limitation phrase “[a] method for coding a current block decoding, from a compressed bitstream….” The claim appears to be missing transitional language, such as “comprising,” between “current block” and “decoding.” As currently written, it is unclear whether “decoding” is intended to be a step of the claimed method or part of the preamble.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites “[a] non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations for coding a current block, the operations comprising:” The scope of the term facilitate perform is unclear. It is unclear whether the executable instructions themselves cause the processor to perform the recited operations, merely assist another component in performing the operations, or otherwise only make performance of the operations easier.
For the purpose of applying art, the Examiner interprets the term facilitate to executable instructions themselves cause the processor to perform the recited operations.
Regarding claims 2-9, 19 and 20, these claims depend, directly or indirectly, from a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 2-9 do not remedy this deficiency and therefore inherit the rejection of the parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-11, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20230344984 A1), hereinafter referred to as Li, in view of Zou et al. (US 20170332095 A1), hereinafter referred to as Zou.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses method for coding a current block (See ¶[0023])
decoding, from a compressed bitstream, at least one syntax element indicating that an affine model used for decoding the current block is a scaling-only affine model (See ¶¶[0219]-[0222], [0244]and [0265]),
wherein the at least one syntax element is not a parameter of the affine model (See ¶¶[0219], [0222] and [0244]), and
wherein a prediction for the current block is to be obtained using the affine model (See ¶[0232] and [0239])
obtaining a prediction block for the current block using the scaling-only affine model (See ¶¶[0232] and [0239])
Li does not explicitly disclose decoding, from the compressed bitstream, parameters of the scaling-only affine model.
However, Zou from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses decoding, from the compressed bitstream, parameters of the scaling-only affine model (See ¶[0007] and [0034])
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Li to add the teachings of Zou as above, in order to reconstruct the motion vectors (MVs) at the decoder side and reduce motion-vector-difference signaling and improve prediction accuracy for affine addresses. (Zou, [0034]-[0037] and [0143]).
Regarding claim 2, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one syntax element indicates that a same scaling factor is to be applied in a horizontal direction and a vertical direction (See ¶¶[0219]-[0220]).
Regarding claim 3, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the parameters consist of three parameters (See ¶[0219]).
Regarding claim 4, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one syntax element indicates that a first scaling factor is to be applied in a horizontal and a second scaling factor is to be applied in a vertical direction (See ¶¶[0222] and [0223]).
Regarding claim 5, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the parameters consist of four parameters (See ¶[0222).
Regarding claim 6, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one syntax element comprise a second syntax element that is a flag indicating that the affine model is the scaling-only affine model (See ¶¶[0219]-[0224] and [0244]).
Li does not explicitly disclose a first syntax element indicating that the current block is to be predicted using the affine model.
However, Zou from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses a first syntax element indicating that the current block is to be predicted using the affine model (See ¶¶[0104] and [0110]).
The motivation for combining Li and Zou has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li and Zou disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one syntax element comprise a first syntax element indicating that the current block is to be predicted using the affine model and a second syntax element that is a flag indicating that the affine model is the scaling-only affine model (See Li, ¶[0265] disclosing “[t]he syntax element can be included in one of a sequence parameter set, a picture parameter set, and a slice header; and Zou ¶¶ [0075] and [0078] disclosing that the affine prediction enable flag. Examiner notes that both syntax elements are used to configure affine prediction and would be signaled using the same syntax structure).
The motivation for combining Li and Zou has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 8, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the flag indicates that three parameters are obtained from the compressed bitstream (See ¶¶[0116] and [0219]).
Li does not explicitly disclose the first syntax element indicates that the affine model is a four-parameter affine model.
However, Zou from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses the first syntax element indicates that the affine model is a four-parameter affine model and (See ¶¶[0041] and [0116]).
The motivation for combining Li and Zou has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 9, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses the method of claim 6, the flag indicates that four parameters are obtained from the compressed bitstream. (See ¶[0222]).
Li does not explicitly disclose wherein the first syntax element indicates that the affine model is a six-parameter affine model
However, Zou from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses wherein the first syntax element indicates that the affine model is a six-parameter affine model (See ¶¶[0041] and [0116]).
The motivation for combining Li and Zou has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a device for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Li discloses device, comprising: a memory; and a processor, the processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (See ¶¶[0273]-[0275]).
Regarding claim 11, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses device of claim 10, wherein the at least one syntax element includes a first syntax element, wherein the first syntax element indicates an affine mode and is selected from a set comprising a scaling-only mode, a four-parameter affine mode, and a six-parameter affine mode (See ¶¶[0219]-[0224] and [0244]), and
wherein in a case that the first syntax element is the scaling-only mode, the at least one syntax element includes a second syntax element indicating whether the scaling-only affine model is a three-parameter scaling only model or a four-parameter scaling-only model (See ¶¶[0219]-[0224] and [0244]. Examiner notes that this limitation recited conditionally. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, such conditional limitation does not require the condition to occur in every performance of the claimed method unless the claim language affirmatively requires occurrence of the condition. See MPEP 2111.04.).
Regarding claim 13, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses the device of claim 10, wherein to decode, from the compressed bitstream, parameters of the scaling-only affine model comprises to: set a vertical component v1y of the second control point to first vertical component v0y of the first control point (¶[0222]); and set a horizontal component v2x of the third control point to the horizontal component v0x of the first control point (¶[0222]).
Li does not explicitly disclose decode, from the compressed bitstream, a horizontal component v0x and a vertical component v0y of a first control point; decode a horizontal component v1x of a second control point; decode a vertical component v2y of a third control point;
However, Zou from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses decode, from the compressed bitstream, a horizontal component v0x and a vertical component v0y of a first control point (See ¶¶[0035]-[0037]);
decode a horizontal component v1x of a second control point (See ¶[0037]);
decode a vertical component v2y of a third control point (See ¶[0039]);
The motivation for combining Li and Zou has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Li discloses non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations for coding a current block, (See ¶¶[0273]-[0275]).
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 13, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Zou, and further, in view of Chuang (WO2017156705A1), hereinafter referred to as Chuang.
Regarding claim 12, Li, Zou and Chuang disclose all the limitations of claim XXX, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Li discloses the device of claim 10, wherein the set a vertical component vy of the MV of the second control point to the vertical component v0y of the MV of the first control point (See ¶¶[0219]-[0221])
set a horizontal component v2x of an MV of a third control point to the horizontal component v0x of the MV of the first control point (See ¶¶[0219]-[0221])
Li does not explicitly disclose wherein to decode, from the compressed bitstream, the parameters of the scaling-only affine model comprises to:
decode, from the compressed bitstream, a horizontal component v0x and a vertical component v0y of a motion vector (MV) of a first control point, and a horizontal component v1x of an MV of a second control point;. and set a vertical component v2y of the MV of the third control point based on the horizontal component v0x of the MV of the first control point, the horizontal component of the MV of the second control point, and the vertical component of the MV of the first control point
However, Zou from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses, wherein to decode, from the compressed bitstream, the parameters of the scaling-only affine model comprises to: decode, from the compressed bitstream, a horizontal component v0x and a vertical component v0y of a motion vector (MV) of a first control point, and a horizontal component v1x of an MV of a second control point (See ¶¶[0035]-[0037]);
The motivation for combining Li and Zou has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Chuang from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses set a vertical component v2y of the MV of the third control point based on the horizontal component v0x of the MV of the first control point, the horizontal component of the MV of the second control point, and the vertical component of the MV of the first control point (See ¶[0023])
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Li and Zou to add the teachings of Chuang as above, in order to preserve the precision (Chuang, [0023]).
Claims 14-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Zou, and further, in view of Lee (US20200260110A1), hereinafter referred to as Lee
Regarding claim 14, Li and Zou disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Li does not explicitly disclose the device of claim 10, wherein to decode, from the compressed bitstream, the parameters of the scaling-only affine model comprises to:
decode, from the compressed bitstream, a horizontal component v0x and a vertical component v0y of an MV of a first control point; and
determine based on a width and a height of the current block whether to decode a horizontal component v1x of an MV of a second control point or to decode a vertical component v2y of an MV of a third control point.
However, Li from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses the device of claim 10, wherein to decode, from the compressed bitstream, the parameters of the scaling-only affine model comprises to: decode, from the compressed bitstream, a horizontal component v0x and a vertical component v0y of an MV of a first control point (See [0035]-[0037]).
The motivation for combining Li and Zou has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Furthermore, Lee from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses the determine based on a width and a height of the current block whether to decode a horizontal component v1x of an MV of a second control point or to decode a vertical component v2y of an MV of a third control point (See ¶¶[0235]-[0239] ).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Li and Zou to add the teachings of Lee as above, in order to increase image coding efficiency (Lee, [0005]).
Regarding claim 15, Li, Zou and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 14, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Li does not explicitly disclose the device of claim 14, wherein to determine based on the width and the height of the current block whether to decode the horizontal component v1x of the second control point or to decode the vertical component v2y of the third control point comprises to:
in response to determining that the height is not smaller than the width, determine to decode the vertical component v2y of the MV of the third control point; and
in response to determining that the height is smaller than the width, determine to decode the horizontal component v1x of the MV of the second control point.
However, Lee from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses the device of claim 14, wherein to determine based on the width and the height of the current block whether to decode the horizontal component v1x of the second control point or to decode the vertical component v2y of the third control point comprises to: in response to determining that the height is not smaller than the width, determine to decode the vertical component v2y of the MV of the third control point (See [0235]-[0237]); and
in response to determining that the height is smaller than the width, determine to decode the horizontal component v1x of the MV of the second control point (See [0235]-[0237]).
The motivation for combining Li, Zou and Lee has been discussed in connection with claim 14, above.
Regarding claim 16, Li, Zou and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 14, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Li does not explicitly disclose the device of claim 10, wherein the processor further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to: apply a shearing-based affine prediction to the current block in response to determining that the at least one syntax element indicates that the affine model is the scaling-only affine model.
However, Lee from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses the device of claim 10, wherein the processor further configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to: apply a shearing-based affine prediction to the current block in response to determining that the at least one syntax element indicates that the affine model is the scaling-only affine model (See [0088]-[0091]);
The motivation for combining Li, Zou and Lee has been discussed in connection with claim 14, above.
Regarding claim 17, Li, Zou and Lee disclose all the limitations of claim 14, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Further, Li disclose the devices of claim 10, wherein to decode, from the compressed bitstream, the at least one syntax element indicating that the affine model is the scaling-only affine model comprises to: determine that another block is decoded using the scaling-only affine model (See [0116], [0244] and [0346])
Li does not explicitly disclose decode the at least one syntax element indicating that the current block is merged with another block;.
However, Lee from the same or similar endeavor of image compression discloses decode the at least one syntax element indicating that the current block is merged with another block; and (See [0078]-[0080] and [0125]); and
The motivation for combining Li, Zou and Lee has been discussed in connection with claim 14, above.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 14, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights