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 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 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. Claim 10 recites "A computer-readable storage medium". Considering the open-ended definition of the medium in the specification, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2111), the claim as a whole covers both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the 4 categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
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 6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation “deriving a first prediction mode and a second prediction mode for a current block based on a template matching cost, wherein a template matching cost calculated based on the first prediction mode is less than a template matching cost calculated based on the second prediction mode,” renders the claim unclear because it is unclear the order and dependency of operations. Specifically, the claim appears to define the prediction mode based on a template matching cost, while also defining the template cost based on the prediction mode. Therefore, the scope of the claim can’t be reasonably ascertained.
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) 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180359483 A1-Chen et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chen “), in view of Patent 10419754 B1-Zhao et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses an image decoding method (Fig. 14), performed by an image decoding apparatus (Fig. 7), comprising:
deriving a first prediction mode and a second prediction mode for a current block based on a template matching cost ([0079], wherein plurality of available prediction modes; [0314] wherein each respective MPM of the plurality of MPMs specifies a respective intra prediction mode of a respective block. The plurality of MPMs includes a particular MPM that specifies an intra prediction mode of a non-adjacent block of a current picture of the video data; [0143], wherein select among uni-prediction from list0, uni-prediction from list1 or bi-prediction for a CU. The selection may be based on a template matching cost) wherein a template matching cost calculated based on the first prediction mode is less than a template matching cost calculated based on the second prediction mode ([0143], If costBi <= factor × min (cost0, cost1), bi-prediction is used; Else If cost0 <= cost1, uni-prediction from list0 is used; Else, uni-prediction from list1 is used; In the pseudocode of Sequence 1, above, cost0 is the SAD of list0 template matching, cost1 is the SAD of list1 template matching and costBi is the SAD of bi-prediction template matching. The value of factor is equal to 5/4, which means that the selection process is biased to bi-prediction)
Chen fails to disclose generating a first prediction block based on the first prediction mode and a first reference sample line, and generating a second prediction block based on the second prediction mode and a second reference sample line; and generating a final prediction block of the current block based on the first prediction block and the second prediction block, wherein at least one of the first reference sample line or the second reference sample line is determined based on whether the first prediction mode or the second prediction mode is a planar mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhao discloses generating a first prediction block based on the first prediction mode and a first reference sample line (column 20, lines 40-50, wherein reference samples lines have been used to generate predictors, prediction mode is used to generate predictors; , and generating a second prediction block based on the second prediction mode and a second reference sample line (column 20, lines 40-50, wherein each of the multiple predictors is the prediction generated based on reference lines); and generating a final prediction block of the current block based on the first prediction block and the second prediction block (column 20, lines 50-60, wherein final prediction block is based on weighted sum of two generated prediction blocks), wherein at least one of the first reference sample line or the second reference sample line is determined based on whether the first prediction mode or the second prediction mode is a planar mode (column 4, lines 20-26, wherein determines the reference line to be a default reference line when the intra prediction mode is one of a planar mode)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the decoding method disclosed by Chen to disclose generating a first prediction block based on the first prediction mode and a first reference sample line, and generating a second prediction block based on the second prediction mode and a second reference sample line; and generating a final prediction block of the current block based on the first prediction block and the second prediction block, wherein at least one of the first reference sample line or the second reference sample line is determined based on whether the first prediction mode or the second prediction mode is a planar mode as taught by Zhao, to improve coding efficiency (Zhao).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 6, wherein based on the first prediction mode being a planar mode, the first reference sample line is determined as a first reference sample line adjacent to the current block (Fig 12 shows reference sample line being adjacent), and the second reference sample line is determined as a r-th reference sample line adjacent to the current block (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 6, wherein based on the second prediction mode being a planar mode (column 4, lines 20-26), the first reference sample line is determined as a r-th reference sample line adjacent to the current block (Fig. 12), and the second reference sample line is determined as a first reference sample line adjacent to the current block (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 9, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 6, wherein based on the first prediction mode and the second prediction mode including a planar mode and a non-planar mode, the final prediction block is generated by performing a weighted sum of a first prediction block generated in the planar mode based on a first reference sample line adjacent to the current block, a second prediction block generated in the planar mode based on a r-th reference sample line adjacent to the current block, and a third prediction block generated in the non-planar mode based on the r-th reference sample line (column 20, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 6, wherein the template matching cost is calculated based on a prediction block resulting from predicting a template area of the current block in the planar mode ([0314]), wherein a top reference sample and a top-right reference sample used for prediction of the template area are obtained from a first reference sample line adjacent to a top template area (Zhao fig 9), and wherein a left reference sample and a bottom-left reference sample used for prediction of the template area are obtained from a first reference sample line adjacent to a left template area (Zhao fig 9).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 10, wherein the template area includes a top template area and a left template area, wherein a bottom-left reference sample used for prediction of the top template area is identical to a bottom-left reference sample of the left template area, and wherein a top-right reference sample used for prediction of the left template area is identical to a top-right reference sample of the top template area (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 10, wherein the template area includes a top template area and a left template area, wherein a bottom-left reference sample used for prediction of the top template area has an identical y-coordinate as a bottom-left sample of the top template area, and wherein a top-right reference sample used for prediction of the left template area has an identical x-coordinate as a top-right sample of the left template area (Fig. (9)).
Regarding claim 13, Zhao discloses the image decoding method of claim 12, wherein a value of a left reference sample and a value of a bottom-left reference sample used for prediction of the top template area are modified based on a width of the left template area, and wherein a value of a top reference sample and a value of a top-right reference sample used for prediction of the left template area are modified based on a height of the top template area (Column 17, lines 25-50).
Regarding claim 14, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 6 and are applicable for claim 16.
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) 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 20180359483 A1-Chen et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Claim 16 have been interpreted above as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and the case law cited therein because it recites “A computer readable medium comprising a bitstream carrying [data]”. As such, claim 16 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 16 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored wherein the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. Although any machine readable media is considered analogous to claim 16 given their proper interpretation as a mere data carrier, Zhao discloses in [0012], a computer readable medium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights