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 .
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 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the histogram of gradient for chroma components of the video picture.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claim 14 recites “An apparatus comprising means for performing of the method of claim 1.” This fails to recite a combination of structural elements making up the claimed apparatus.
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.
When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers an abstract idea, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter)
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 17 is directed to “A computer program product including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to carry out the method of claim 1.” The claim is directed to software which is not embodied on a CRM and thus broadly covers ineligible transitory embodiments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240244194 to Fillipov (“Fillipov”) in view of US 20220224915 to Wang (“Wang”) also cited in an IDS.
Regarding Claim 1: “A method of decoding a block of samples of a video picture, the method comprising
determining an intra-prediction mode for decoding the block of samples (“the intra prediction mode at both the encoder and decoder … current block 1702 may be a CU within a CTU of a picture.” Fillipov, Paragraphs 125-126.)
according to an analysis of gradients of samples located in at least one template area defined around the block of samples by: (“DIMD may perform a gradient analysis on samples (e.g., luma samples) of a template 1704 comprising neighboring samples of current block 1702.” Fillipov, Paragraph 127.)
- calculating one histogram of gradients, (“use the intra prediction mode as an index to a histogram of gradients (HoG)” Fillipov, Paragraph 130, and Fig. 17.)
where each entry of the histogram of gradients corresponds to an angular intra-prediction mode, (“The value in HoG 1708 at that index corresponding to the intra prediction direction … permit an indication of one of the 65 angular intra prediction mode described in the VVC standard” Fillipov, Paragraphs 131, 137, and Figs. 10A-10B.)
by filtering samples of the at least one template area, (“For example, the encoder and decoder may apply a 3x3 Sobel gradient filter to one or more positions of a 3x3 window of samples 1706 centered on a sample within template 1704.” Fillipov, Paragraph 127, and Fig. 17.)
said filtering using filtering windows centered at middle line sample positions of the at least one template area; (“encoder and decoder may not apply the matrices of ( 19) and (20) to 3x3 window of samples 1706 centered on a sample in template 1704 that is directly adjacent to current block 1702 due to a lack of neighboring samples either on the right-side of the sample or below the sample,” thus this 3x3 filter has to be centered in the middles of the 3 lines of the template to make sure it covers existing template values. See Fillipov, Paragraph 128, and Fig. 17.)
- selecting at most two angular intra-prediction modes by comparing amplitudes of angular intra-prediction modes in the histogram of gradients ; and (“encoder and decoder may use multiple intra prediction modes as the DIMD intra prediction mode for current block 1702 … For example, the encoder and decoder may use the intra predictions modes corresponding to two or more of the highest peaks in HoG 1708” See Fillipov, Paragraph 131, and Fig. 17.)
- determining the intra-prediction mode from the at most two selected angular intra-prediction modes, (For example, “and computing a final predictor based on a weighted average of each prediction,” or select “the intra prediction mode with a lowest RD cost).” Fillipov, Paragraphs 131-132, and Fig. 17.)
wherein an integer number of middle line sample positions of the at least one template area at which the filtering windows are centered, is lower than a total integer number of middle line sample positions of the at least one template area.” (See the “3x3 window of samples 1706 centered on a sample in template 1704” which covers the number of samples in the template that is lower than a total number of sample positions in the template area. See Fillipov, Paragraph 128, and Fig. 17.)
Fillipov does not explicitly refer to centers and middle lines with respect to the template segments.
Wang illustrates that positions in the template can indeed be described in terms of reference lines and segments in the context of DIMD coding mode. See Wang, Figs. 16, 22.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Fillipov to orient the filter windows and template contents based on centers and lines as taught in Wang, to provide a point of reference in applying filters to the pixels of the template. See Wang, Figs. 16, 22.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Claim 2, “A method of encoding a block of samples of a video picture, the method comprising determining an intra-prediction mode …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches determining “the intra prediction mode at both the encoder and decoder … current block 1702 may be a CU within a CTU of a picture.” Fillipov, Paragraphs 125-126.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein the histogram of gradient for chroma components of the video picture is calculated by filtering only chroma samples of the at least one template area.” (Fillipov indicates that filtering can be separately performed on luma and chroma components. See Fillipov, Paragraph 93. Here, the processed block can be a block of luma pixels or a block of chroma pixels. Fillipov, Paragraph 74 and similarly in Wang, Paragraphs 62, 110, 181.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the at least one template area comprises samples along a bottom frontier of a neighbouring above Virtual Pipeline Data Unit and along a right frontier of a neighbouring left virtual Pipeline Data Unit.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the virtual pipeline data unit embodies a coding unit. See Specification, Page 1, lines 48-58 and Page 12, lines 3-40. Prior art teaches this embodiment: “Template 1804 may extend to the left and above current block 1802 by L1 and L2 samples, respectively.” Fillipov, Paragraphs 134, 128 and Figs. 17-18.)
Regarding Claim 5: “The method of claim 4, wherein at least one of the at least one template area comprises all luma samples on a border of the neighbour neighbouring above virtual Pipeline Data Unit and a border of the neighbouring left virtual Pipeline Data Unit.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the virtual pipeline data unit embodies a coding unit. See Specification, Page 1, lines 48-58 and Page 12, lines 3-40. Prior art teaches this embodiment: “Template 1804 may extend to the left and above current block 1802 by L1 and L2 samples, respectively.” Fillipov, Paragraphs 134, 128 and Figs. 17-18. Here, the L template can be for a block of luma pixels or a block of chroma pixels. Fillipov, Paragraph 74 and similarly in Wang, Paragraphs 62, 110, 181.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The method of claim 4, wherein at least one of the at least one template area comprises a subset of luma samples on a border of the neighbour neighbouring above virtual Pipeline Data Unit and a border of the neighbouring left virtual Pipeline Data Unit.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, the virtual pipeline data unit embodies a coding unit. See Specification, Page 1, lines 48-58 and Page 12, lines 3-40. Prior art teaches this embodiment: “Template 1804 may extend to the left and above current block 1802 by L1 and L2 samples, respectively.” Fillipov, Paragraphs 134, 128 and Figs. 17-18. Here, the L template can be for a block of luma pixels or a block of chroma pixels. Fillipov, Paragraph 74 and similarly in Wang, Paragraphs 62, 110, 181.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The method of claim 1, wherein one histogram of gradients is calculated for each chroma component of the video picture.” (Fillipov indicates that filtering can be separately performed on luma and chroma components. See Fillipov, Paragraph 93. Here, the processed block can be a block of luma pixels or a block of chroma pixels. Fillipov, Paragraph 74 and similarly in Wang, Paragraphs 62, 110, 181.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The method of claim 7, wherein each histogram of gradients for a chroma component of the video picture is calculated from luma and chroma samples of template areas.” (“DIMD may perform a gradient analysis on samples (e.g., luma samples) of a template 1704 comprising neighboring samples of current block 1702.” Fillipov, Paragraph 127 and Figs. 17-18. Here, the L template can be for a block of luma pixels or a block of chroma pixels. Fillipov, Paragraph 74 and similarly in Wang, Paragraphs 62, 110, 181.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 8, wherein the chroma samples of the template are multiplied by a compensation coefficient that depends on a chroma sub-sampling defined by a video picture format.” (“In VVC, 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 chroma formats are supported as well as 4:2:0. … Therefore, chroma DM derivation table for 4:2:2: chroma format can be updated by replacing some values of the entries of the mapping table to convert prediction angle more precisely for chroma blocks.” Wang, Paragraph 115. For example, the down-sampling can be performed by multiplication with appropriate coefficients. Wang, Paragraphs 150-152. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The method of claim 1, wherein the middle line sample positions of at least one of the at least one template area at which the filtering windows are centered, are determined to locate the filtering windows on 1 out of a fourth number of the middle line sample positions of the template area.” (“For example, the encoder and decoder may apply a 3x3 Sobel gradient filter to one or more positions of a 3x3 window of samples 1706 centered on a sample within template 1704.” Fillipov, Paragraph 127, and Figs. 17-18. In this example, a 3x3 filter window would be iterated at 1 out of every 4 coefficients in the template.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The method of claim 1, wherein the middle line sample positions of at least one of the at least one template area at which the filtering windows are centered, are determined to avoid any overlap between the filtering windows.” (See sub-templates that avoid filter overlap in Wang, Figs. 16, 31-32 and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 12: “The method of claim 1, wherein the filtering windows have different sizes.” (“For example, the matrices of ( 19) and (20) may be replaced with 3x2 matrices for 3x3 window of samples 1706 centered on a sample in the column of template 1704 immediately to the left of current block 1702 and with 2x3 matrices for 3x3 window of samples 1706 centered on a sample in the row immediately above current block 1702.” Filipov, Paragraph 128.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The method of claim 1, wherein the filtering windows size depends on the size of the block of samples and sample of the template area availability.” (“the encoder and decoder may not apply the matrices of ( 19) and (20) to 3x3 window of samples 1706 centered on a sample in template 1704 that is directly adjacent to current block 1702 due to a lack of neighboring samples either on the right-side of the sample or below the sample. In another embodiment, the encoder and decoder may apply modified versions of the matrices of (19) and (20)” thus the filtering windows depend on the sample of the template area availability. See Fillipov, Paragraph 128. Cumulatively, see dependence of filter and template sizes on block size in Fillipov, Paragraph 134.)
Regarding Claim 14: “An apparatus comprising means for performing of the method of claim 1.” (See reasons for rejection in Claim 1 and under section 112 above.)
Regarding Claim 15: “A non-transitory storage medium carrying instructions of program code for executing the method of claim 1.” (Specification defines program code as code loaded and executed by a processor. See Specification, Page 13, lines 44-45. Prior art teaches: “includes a computer usable storage medium having stored therein computer software and/or data.” Fillipov, Paragraph 169.)
Regarding Claim 16: “An electronic device, comprising: a processor; and a memory for storing instructions executable by the processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform the method of claim 1.” (“Program code to be loaded onto processor 710 or encoder/decoder 730 to perform the various aspects described in the present disclosure may be stored in storage device 740 and subsequently loaded onto memory 720 for execution by processor 710.” Fillipov, Paragraph 169.)
Regarding Claim 17: “A computer program product including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to carry out the method of claim 1.” (“Program code to be loaded onto processor 710 or encoder/decoder 730 to perform the various aspects described in the present disclosure may be stored in storage device 740 and subsequently loaded onto memory 720 for execution by processor 710.” Fillipov, Paragraph 169.)
Claim 18: “A decoder” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches:
‘comprising a processor configured for …” (“Program code to be loaded onto processor 710 or encoder/decoder 730 to perform the various aspects described in the present disclosure may be stored in storage device 740 and subsequently loaded onto memory 720 for execution by processor 710.” Fillipov, Paragraph 169.)
Claim 19: “An encoder” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 2, and because prior art teaches:
‘comprising a processor configured for …” (“Program code to be loaded onto processor 710 or encoder/decoder 730 to perform the various aspects described in the present disclosure may be stored in storage device 740 and subsequently loaded onto memory 720 for execution by processor 710.” Fillipov, Paragraph 169.)
Claim 20 is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 4 in view of the Claim 19 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230217016 covers similar aspects of DIMD mode in VVC as the cited prior art above.
Abdoli, Mohsen, et al. "Decoder-side intra mode derivation for next generation video coding." 2020 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME). IEEE, 2020. This reference provides an early description of DIMD mode in VVC relevant to the claimed subject matter above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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 (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights