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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 12 February 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2012/0008676 A1).
Regarding Claims 1-2, 13, and 15, Lee discloses an apparatus comprising: a processor, configured to perform: determining one or more boundary candidates within a video block that uses geometric partitioning mode [Lee: FIG. 15; ¶ [0177] Partitions having geometric shapes may not be merged with neighboring data units contacting upper boundaries and left boundaries of the partitions according to positions and shapes of the partitions; ¶ [0187] There may be selectively included partitions having… geometric partition types obtained by splitting a height or a width of a prediction unit into various geometrical shapes; and ¶ [0254] The coding unit determiner 120 may include all of a plurality of left neighboring data units neighboring a left boundary of a current prediction unit or a current partition and all of a plurality of upper neighboring data units neighboring an upper boundary in a candidate group of neighboring data units to be merged with the current data unit or the current partition]; associating the one or more boundary candidates with metrics to determine which boundary candidate to use for encoding [Lee: ¶ [0255] A lower left neighboring data unit neighboring a lower left corner of the current prediction unit or the current partition may also be referred to according to a scanning order or a decoding order based on the coding units having the tree structure. Accordingly, the coding unit determiner 120 may further include data units neighboring an upper left corner, an upper right corner, and a lower left corner in addition to all of a plurality of the left neighboring data units and the upper neighboring data units in the merging candidate group of the current prediction unit or the current partition; and [0100] First, the data unit merger/decoder 23 may analyze whether a current data unit is merged with a neighboring data unit based on merging information in merging related information. If it is read that the current data unit is merged with the neighboring data unit, the data unit merger/decoder 23 may determine at least one candidate data unit group including a data unit that may be merged with the current data unit in regions neighboring the current data unit based on merging index information in merging related information. The data unit merger/decoder 23 may determine one data unit to be merged with the current data unit in the at least one candidate data unit group. A candidate data unit group for merging of the current data unit may be determined for each of at least one region neighboring the current data unit]; encoding said video block in geometric partitioning mode using the determined boundary candidate and prediction modes corresponding to portions of the video block defined by the determined boundary candidate [Lee: ¶ [0101] The data unit merger/decoder 23 may determine one data unit to be merged with the current data unit based on at least one of a method of determining a candidate data unit group that is preset according to a predetermined rule between encoding/decoding systems and a method of determining one data unit in the candidate data unit group]; and, signaling in a bitstream the determined boundary candidate used in geometric partitioning mode [Lee: ¶ [0009] According to an aspect of another exemplary embodiment, there is provided a method of decoding a video by using data unit merging, the method including: parsing a received bitstream to extract encoded video data and encoding information and extract prediction mode information, merging related information, and prediction related information in the encoding information].
Regarding Claims 3-4, Lee discloses an apparatus, comprising: a processor, configured to perform: parsing a bitstream to determine determining a boundary within a video block that uses geometric partitioning mode obtained from a list of two or more boundary candidates at an encoder [Lee: FIG. 15; ¶ [0177]; and ¶ [0254]]; and, decoding said video block using prediction modes corresponding to portions of the video block defined by the determined boundary [Lee: ¶ [0009].
Regarding Claim 7, Lee discloses all the limitations of Claim 3 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Lee discloses wherein the boundary is determined by using an index indicative of one of several boundary candidates to be used [Lee: ¶ [0100]].
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.
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) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 2023/0362390 A1).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Lee disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 3, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein determining comprises a cost determination.
However, Hong discloses wherein determining comprises a cost determination wherein determining comprises a cost determination [Hong: ¶ [0156]: As another example, for merge mode, the apparatus 300 may check the validity of each merge candidate, and ignore any invalid merge candidates in the merge candidate list. Additionally, if an invalid candidate can potentially affect the merge candidates that follow the invalid candidate in a merge candidate list, the apparatus 300 may ignore those affected merge candidates as well. The apparatus 300 may then determine coding costs for only the valid merge candidates].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the cost analysis of Hong with the process of Lee in order to provide reduced error and computational load.
Claim(s) 6, 9-11, 17-18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Celetto et al. (US 2012/0128071 A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Lee disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 3, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the boundary candidate used for encoding is determined through error analysis.
However, Celetto discloses wherein the boundary candidate used for encoding is determined through error analysis [Celetto: ¶ [0004]: All the motion vectors in the candidate set are tested. The missing macroblock is replaced by the one in the reference frame that minimizes the boundary matching error (BME), defined as the sum of absolute differences (SAD) between the boundary pixels of the candidate macroblock in the reference frame, and the boundary pixels].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the analysis of Celetto with the process of Lee in order to provide improved computational accuracy and reduced load.
Regarding Claim 18, Lee in view of Celetto disclose(s) all the limitations of Claim 17, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim, furthermore, note the Examiner’s rejection for Claim 7. The Examiner notes the method of Claim 18 can be implemented by the method of Claim 7.
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, Lee disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 2 and 4, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the boundary candidates are associated with metrics outside a boundary area.
However, Celetto discloses wherein the boundary candidates are associated with metrics outside a boundary area [Celetto: ¶ [0099]: As an alternative choice for the cost function, an overlapping BMA (OBMA) metric may be used. In this case, the distortion is evaluated taking into account only one side of the border between the lost block and the correctly received block in the reference frame. More precisely, in the overlapping BMA metric, a sum of the absolute differences is evaluated between the luminance values of the boundary pixels outside the candidate replacement sub-block and the boundary pixels outside the sub-block to be recovered. Accordingly, the metric is given by EQU0002].
Regarding Claims 10, Lee disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 2 and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein a cost of a boundary candidate is determined as an absolute difference between two predictions in blocks containing the boundary candidate.
However, Celetto discloses wherein a cost of a boundary candidate is determined as an absolute difference between two predictions in blocks containing the boundary candidate [Celetto: ¶ [0004]].
Regarding Claims 11 and 21, Celetto disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 2 and 4, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein a boundary score is used as a reference boundary location and a difference is signaled to indicate a final boundary position.
However, Celetto discloses wherein a boundary score is used as a reference boundary location and a difference is signaled to indicate a final boundary position [Celetto: ¶ [0004]].
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Cho et al. (US 2021/00125030 A1).
Regarding Claims 8 and 19, Lee disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 4, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Lee may not explicitly disclose wherein the boundary candidates are ranked according to a boundary fitting score.
However, Cho discloses wherein the boundary candidates are ranked according to a boundary fitting score [Cho: ¶ [0014]: The image generating apparatus may further include a user interface, and the display may further output a preset number of boundaries having high ranks from among the plurality of candidate boundaries according to the result of the assessing, which is obtained by using the second AI model, and the processor may be further configured to execute the one or more instructions to identify, as the optimal boundary].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the analysis of Cho with the process of Lee in order to provide improved filtering and reduce computational load.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Begaint et al. (US 2024/0380929 A1).
Regarding Claims 12, Lee disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Lee may not explicitly disclose at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including the video block, (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the video block, and (iii) a display configured to display an output representative of a video block..
However, Begaint discloses at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including the video block, (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the video block, and (iii) a display configured to display an output representative of a video block [Begaint: ¶ [0010]: an apparatus according to any of the decoding embodiments; and at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including a video block or image, (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the video block or image, or (iii) a display configured to display an output representative of a video block or image].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the output display of Begaint with the process of Lee in order to provide a usable product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights