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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/04/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 17 is drawn to a computer readable medium.
Further, Applicant's specification, at paragraph 11, fails to explicitly define the scope of “a computer-readable medium”. Thus, in giving the term its plain meaning (see MPEP 2111.01), the claimed “computer readable medium” is considered to include data signals per se. Data signals per se are not statutory as they fail to fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention.
As an additional note, a non-transitory computer readable medium having executable programming instructions stored thereon is considered statutory as non-transitory computer readable media excludes transitory data signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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) 1-9 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim (US 20240267509 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lim teaches a method of reconstructing a current block by a video decoding device (Abstract), the method comprising:
decoding from a bitstream a distance index (adjacent_idx) that indicates a distance between the current block and a template region (Paragraphs 207-212; Paragraphs 217-230; Paragraph 259; Paragraph 293);
determining the template region based on the distance between the current block and the template region, and a shape of the template region (Paragraph 193; Paragraphs 200-204; Paragraphs 207-212; Paragraphs 217-230; Paragraph 259; Paragraph 293);
searching for an optimal template in a search region by using the template region and based on template matching, wherein the search region is defined within a reconstructed region of the current block (Paragraphs 143-145; Paragraphs 194-195); and
generating a prediction block of the current block from a reference block corresponding to the optimal template (Paragraph 147).
Regarding Claim 2, Lim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the shape of the template region comprises: an L-shape that is present on a top-and-left of the current block and is defined based on a width of the current block, a height of the current block, a bottom width of a template region present on a left of the current block, a right height of a template region present on a top of the current block, and the distance between the current block and the template region, wherein the bottom width of the template region present on the left of the current block and the right height of the template region present on the top of the current block are implicitly determined or fixed values based on a size of the current block (Paragraph 110; Paragraph 193; Paragraphs 200-204; Paragraphs 207-212; Paragraphs 217-230; Paragraph 259; Paragraph 293).
Regarding Claim 3, Lim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the shape of the template region comprises: a rectangular shape that is present on a left of the current block and is defined based on a width and a height of a template region present on the left of the current block, wherein a difference between the height of the template region and a height of the current block is implicitly determined or a fixed value based on a size of the current block, and the width of the template region is implicitly determined or a fixed value based on the size of the current block (Paragraph 110; Paragraph 193; Paragraphs 200-204; Paragraphs 207-212; Paragraphs 217-230; Paragraph 259; Paragraph 289; Paragraph 293; Paragraph 416).
Regarding Claim 4, Lim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the shape of the template region comprises: a rectangular shape that is present on a top of the current block and is defined based on a width and a height of a template region present on the top of the current block, wherein a difference between the width of the template region and a width of the current block is implicitly determined or a fixed value based on a size of the current block, and the height of the template region is implicitly determined or a fixed value based on the size of the current block (Paragraph 110; Paragraph 193; Paragraphs 200-204; Paragraphs 207-212; Paragraphs 217-230; Paragraph 259; Paragraph 289; Paragraph 293; Paragraph 416).
Regarding Claim 5, Lim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the template region comprises: decoding from the bitstream an index indicative of the shape of the template region; and determining the shape of the template region based on the index (Paragraph 178; Paragraph 193; Paragraphs 200-204; Paragraphs 207-212; Paragraphs 217-230; Paragraph 259; Paragraph 293).
Regarding Claim 5, Lim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the template region comprises: implicitly determining the shape of the template region based on an aspect ratio of the current block (Paragraph 178; Paragraph 193; Paragraphs 200-204; Paragraphs 207-212; Paragraphs 217-230; Paragraph 259; Paragraph 293).
Regarding Claim 7, Lim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the template region comprises: implicitly determining, regarding a chroma block of the current block, a position and a shape of a template region of the chroma block according to a prediction mode of a co-located luma block with the chroma block (Paragraph 67; Paragraph 193; Paragraphs 200-204; Paragraphs 207-212; Paragraphs 217-230; Paragraph 259; Paragraph 293).
Regarding Claim 8, Lim teaches the method of claim 1, wherein searching for the optimal template comprises: searching through a natural number N of templates in order of increasing loss value of the templates due to the template matching (Paragraphs 192-198; Paragraphs 207-212; Paragraphs 217-230).
Regarding Claim 9, Lim teaches the method of claim 8, wherein generating the prediction block comprises: weight summing reference blocks corresponding to the N templates to generate the prediction block of the current block (Paragraph 155; Paragraph 211; Paragraph 230; Paragraphs 308-312; Paragraph 404-410).
Method claim 15 is drawn to the method of encoding corresponding to the method of decoding of claim 1 above, and includes substantially the same limitations merely performed in the inverse. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as used above. Lim et al. further teaches a method of encoding a current block by a video encoding device corresponding to the method of video decoding (Paragraph 10).
Regarding Claim 16, Lim teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising encoding the distance index (Paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 claims a product by process claim limitation where the product is the 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 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 computer-readable medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 17 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the 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 Wang which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Lim et al. teaches a computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a video encoding method (Paragraph 87; Paragraph 423).
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.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 20240267509 A1) in view of Cao et al. (US 20220394269 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Lim teaches the method of claim 1, however Lim does not explicitly teach calculating a gradient of the template region; and resetting the template region by using the gradient.
Cao et al., however, teaches calculating a gradient of the template region; and resetting the template region by using the gradient (Paragraphs 180-183).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the decoding and encoding teachings of Lim to include the gradient of template regions as taught in Cao et al. in order to improve coding efficiency (See Cao et al. Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 11, Lim and Cao et al. teach the method of claim 10, however Lim doesn’t explicitly teach wherein calculating the gradient comprises: dividing the template region into subblocks; calculating a magnitude and directionality of the gradient for each of the subblocks; and generating a directionality histogram of the gradient.
Cao et al., however, teaches wherein calculating the gradient comprises: dividing the template region into subblocks; calculating a magnitude and directionality of the gradient for each of the subblocks; and generating a directionality histogram of the gradient (Paragraphs 180-183).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the decoding and encoding teachings of Lim to include the gradient of template regions as taught in Cao et al. in order to improve coding efficiency (See Cao et al. Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 12, Lim and Cao et al. teach the method of claim 11, Lim further teaches wherein each of the subblocks has a size implicitly determined by a size of the current block, or has a preset size (Paragraphs 59-60).
Regarding Claim 13, Lim and Cao et al. teach the method of claim 11, however, Lim doesn’t explicitly teach wherein resetting the template region comprises: determining as the template region a region of subblocks having a most frequent directionality based on the directionality histogram.
Cao et al., however, teaches wherein resetting the template region comprises: determining as the template region a region of subblocks having a most frequent directionality based on the directionality histogram (Paragraphs 180-183).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the decoding and encoding teachings of Lim to include the gradient of template regions as taught in Cao et al. in order to improve coding efficiency (See Cao et al. Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 14, Lim and Cao et al. teach the method of claim 11, however, Lim doesn’t explicitly teach wherein resetting the template region comprises: generating a magnitude histogram for the gradient; selecting, based on the magnitude histogram, subblocks having gradient magnitudes equal to or greater than a preset threshold; and determining, based on the directionality histogram, a region of selected subblocks having a most frequent directionality as the template region.
Cao et al., however, teaches wherein resetting the template region comprises: generating a magnitude histogram for the gradient; selecting, based on the magnitude histogram, subblocks having gradient magnitudes equal to or greater than a preset threshold; and determining, based on the directionality histogram, a region of selected subblocks having a most frequent directionality as the template region (Paragraph 81; Paragraphs 180-183).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the decoding and encoding teachings of Lim to include the gradient of template regions as taught in Cao et al. in order to improve coding efficiency (See Cao et al. Paragraph 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights