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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 and 15-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US 20220295088 A1)
Regarding Claims 1-4, 13, and 15, Zhang discloses an apparatus performing a method, comprising: determining one or more geometric split boundary candidates within a video block that uses geometric partitioning mode(GPM) [Zhang: ¶[0112] In VVC, a geometric partitioning mode is supported for inter prediction. The geometric partitioning mode is signalled using a CU-level flag as one kind of merge mode, with other merge modes including the regular merge mode, the MMVD mode, the CIIP mode and the subblock merge mode]; associating the one or more geometric split boundary candidates with metrics to determine which geometric split boundary candidate to use for encoding/decoding, wherein a cost of a geometric split boundary candidate is determined as an absolute difference between two predictions in subblocks containing the geometric split boundary candidate [Zhang: ¶ [0406] Solution 35. The method of solution 29, wherein the template matching cost associated with the motion candidate is determined based on a boundary SAD between the reference template and reconstructed samples adjacently or non-adjacently neighboring to the template and a SAD between the template and the reference template]; encoding/decode said video block in geometric partitioning mode using the determined geometric split boundary candidate and prediction modes corresponding to portions of the video block defined by the determined geometric split boundary candidate [Zhang: ¶ [0325] FIG. 28 is a block diagram that illustrates an example video coding system 2800 that may utilize the techniques of this disclosure. As shown, the video coding system 2800 may include a source device 2810 and a destination device 2820. The source device 2810 can be also referred to as a video encoding device, and the destination device 2820 can be also referred to as a video decoding device]; and, signaling in a bitstream the determined geometric split boundary candidate used in geometric partitioning mode [Zhang: ¶ [0356] The entropy decoding unit 3001 may retrieve an encoded bitstream. The encoded bitstream may include entropy coded video data (e.g., encoded blocks of video data). The Entropy decoding unit 3001 may decode the entropy coded video data, and from the entropy decoded video data, the motion compensation unit 3002 may determine motion information including motion vectors, motion vector precision, reference picture list indexes, and other motion information. The motion compensation unit 3002 may, for example, determine such information by performing the AMVP and merge mode. AMVP is used, including derivation of several most probable candidates based on data from adjacent PBs and the reference picture].
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang discloses all the limitations of Claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Zhang discloses wherein the boundary is determined by using an index indicative of one of several boundary candidates to be used [Zhang: ¶ [0114] If geometric partitioning mode is used for the current CU, then a geometric partition index indicating the partition mode of the geometric partition (angle and offset), and two merge indices (one for each partition) are further signalled. The number of maximum GPM candidate size is signalled explicitly in SPS and specifies syntax binarization for GPM merge indices. After predicting each of part of the geometric partition, the sample values along the geometric partition edge are adjusted using a blending processing with adaptive weights as in 2.5.2].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang 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, Zhang disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 3, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Zhang 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 Zhang 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 Zhang as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Celetto et al. (US 2012/0128071 A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Zhang disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 3, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Zhang 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 Zhang in order to provide improved computational accuracy and reduced load.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang 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, Zhang disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 2 and 4, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Zhang 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, Zhang disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 2 and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Zhang 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.
Zhang 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 Zhang 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, Zhang disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1 and 4, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Zhang 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 Zhang 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 Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Begaint et al. (US 2024/0380929 A1).
Regarding Claims 12, Zhang disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 1, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Zhang 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 Zhang in order to provide a usable product.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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