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) was submitted on 02/27/2025. The submission 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 § 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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. Claim 16 is applying product-by-process type claim language, where the bitstream is being described as a product that is the result of the coding method process. The method steps are not required elements of the CRM because they only describe the scope of the product, which in this claim is the bitstream. The contents of the bitstream, defined by how the bitstream was generated, only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result are descriptive language. See MPEP $2111.05. The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. The claim scope (in light of the specification) describes the relationship of the contents of the bitstream in terms of how video content can be encoded into a bitstream, however there is no functional relationship between the contents of the information in the bitstream and the storage of that bitstream of the medium.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20110099594).
A bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream 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 storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 16 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 structure 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 Chen which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Paragraph 0015, 0031).
Claims 1-5, 9-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (herein after will be referred to as Li) (US 20220210456).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses
A method of decoding a video, the method comprising: [See Li [Fig. 4] Video decoder.]
obtaining a first prediction block for a current block; [See Li [Fig. 22] P0 (2240).]
obtaining a second prediction block for the current block; and [See Li [Fig. 22] P1 (2250).]
obtaining a final prediction block for the current block based on a weighted sum operation of the first prediction block and the second prediction block, [See Li [Fig. 22] P (2270).]
wherein the first prediction block is obtained by performing a motion compensation on each of first sub-blocks generated when a first partition type is applied to the current block, and [See Li [Fig. 22] P0 is obtained via Pattern 0.]
wherein the second prediction block is obtained by performing a motion compensation on each of second sub-blocks generated when a second partition type is applied to the current block. [See Li [Fig. 22] P1 is obtained via Pattern 1.]
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Li discloses
wherein the first partition type and the second partition type are different in at least one of a position of a partition line partitioning the current block, a number of partition lines, a size of a sub-block generated by partitioning the current block or a shape of a sub-block. [See Li [Fig. 22] P0 is different than P1.]
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses the method of claim 2. Furthermore, Li discloses
wherein the first sub-blocks generated by the first partition type have an equal size, and [See Li [Fig. 22] Pattern 0.]
wherein among the second sub-blocks generated by the second partition type, a part of the second sub-blocks not adjacent to a boundary of the current block have the equal size, and the others of the second sub-blocks adjacent to the boundary of the current block have a smaller size. [See Li [Fig. 22] Pattern 1.]
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Li discloses
wherein the weighted sum operation is performed by applying a first weight to the first prediction block and applying a second weight to the second prediction block. [See Li [Fig. 22] W0 and W1.]
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Li discloses
wherein the first weight and the second weight are variably determined according to a prediction target position. [See Li [0211]
Regarding claim 9, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, see examiners rejection for claim 4 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
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 6-7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20220210456) in view of Li et al. (herein after will be referred to as Li ‘948) (US 20200195948).
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Li does not explicitly disclose
wherein a motion compensation for the first sub-blocks is performed based on a first motion information derivation method, and wherein a motion compensation for the second sub-blocks is performed based on a second motion information derivation method.
However, Li ‘948 does disclose
wherein a motion compensation for the first sub-blocks is performed based on a first motion information derivation method, and wherein a motion compensation for the second sub-blocks is performed based on a second motion information derivation method. [See Li ‘948 [0115] Multi-hypothesis prediction for inter merge including weighted average. Also, see 0102, sbTMVP and affine merge.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Li to add the teachings of Li ‘948, in order to combine the known techniques of interleaved prediction with affine/sbTMVP to improve coding efficiency [See Li ‘948 [0075]].
Regarding claim 7, Li (modified by Li ‘948) disclose the method of claim 6. Furthermore, Li does not explicitly disclose
wherein the first motion information derivation method is an affine model, and wherein the second motion information derivation method is a Sub-block Temporal Motion Vector Prediction (SbTMVP).
However, Li ‘948 does disclose
wherein the first motion information derivation method is an affine model, and wherein the second motion information derivation method is a Sub-block Temporal Motion Vector Prediction (SbTMVP). [See Li ‘948 [0115] Multi-hypothesis prediction for inter merge including weighted average. Also, see 0102, sbTMVP and affine merge.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20220210456) in view of Li ‘948 (US 20200195948) and in further view of Zhang
Regarding claim 8, Li (modified by Li ‘948) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Li does not explicitly disclose
wherein motion information for the first sub-blocks to which the first motion information derivation method is applied is derived based on a first position of a sub-block, and wherein motion information for the second sub-blocks to which the second motion information derivation method is applied is derived based on a second position of the sub-block.
However, Zhang does disclose
wherein motion information for the first sub-blocks to which the first motion information derivation method is applied is derived based on a first position of a sub-block, and wherein motion information for the second sub-blocks to which the second motion information derivation method is applied is derived based on a second position of the sub-block. [See Zhang [0134] Interweaved prediction is applied to part of the current block. Prediction samples at some positions are calculated. Also, see 0136-0138, certain positions for pattern 1 are not calculated. Also, see 0108, Interweaved prediction techniques are applied to all coding techniques of sub-block based prediction.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Li (modified by Li ‘948) to add the teachings of Zhang, in order to improve upon motion prediction [See Zhang [0129]].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230107138
US 20230037443
US 20220210462
US 20220210439
US 20200296411
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights