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 the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 16-21 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 16-21, these claims describe a video processing device while depending, directly or indirectly, on claim 12, which describes a video decoding method. Thus, the scope of the claimed subject matter is unclear because the mentioned video processing device lacks a clear antecedent basis in the claim dependency chain.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 16 -21, these claims describe a video processing device while depending, directly or indirectly, on claim 12, which describes a video decoding method. Therefore, claims 16 to 21 do not properly incorporate all the limitations of the claim on which they depend, nor do they further restrict such claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-11, 13, 14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US20180139461A1), hereinafter referred to as Liu, in view of Lai et al. (US20100278267A1), hereinafter referred to as Lai.
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a video decoding method, comprising (See ¶[0017]):
acquiring reference frame information of a to-be-decoded video frame (See ¶¶[0017] and [0018], for example, NumPocStCurrBefore, NumPocStCurrAfter, NumPocLtCurr, RefPicSetStCurrBefore, RefPicSetStCurrAfter and RefPicSetLtCurr );
determining a reference picture list of the to-be-decoded video frame based on the reference frame information (See ¶¶[0017] and [0018] disclosing that the reference picture list for P slices and, both reference picture lists for B slices are derived using the reference picture information)
decoding the to-be-decoded video frame based on the reference picture list to obtain a first reconstructed picture and a decoded picture of the to-be-decoded video frame (See ¶¶ [0024], [0055], [0057] [0065] and [0066]).
Liu does not explicitly disclose and supplementary frame information.
However, Lai from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses and supplementary frame information (See ¶ [0067] disclosing an additional syntax along with the reference picture list reordering (RPLR) commands which indicates which filter index to use for the reference picture that is being reordered. The additional filter index syntax is supplementary information associated with the reference picture and used to identify applicable filter index during reference picture list reordering)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Liu to add the teachings of Lai as above, in order to inform the decoder which filter index applies to the reference picture being reordered (Lai, [0067]).
Regarding claim 2, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the video decoding method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the first reconstructed picture and the decoded picture of the to-be-decoded video frame in a decoded picture buffer (See ¶¶[0065] and [0066] )
Liu does not explicitly disclose the configuring the supplementary frame information for the first reconstructed picture and the decoded picture of the to-be-decoded video frame.
However, Lai from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the configuring the supplementary frame information for the first reconstructed picture and the decoded picture of the to-be-decoded video frame (See ¶¶[0065]-[0067] disclosing signaling filtered and unfiltered reference picture versions and transmit additional syntax with a reference picture list reordering command to indicate the filter index applicable to the reference picture being reordered.).
The motivation for combining Liu and Lai has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 3, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the video decoding method of claim 1, wherein
the first reconstructed picture and the decoded picture are different (See ¶[0021] disclosing an unfiltered version of the current image and a filtered version of the current image; see also ¶[0024] which discloses current images reconstructed before and after in-loop filtering, stored in separate DPB image buffers); and
the first reconstructed picture undergoes no loop filtering process, or, the first reconstructed picture and the decoded picture each undergo a loop filtering process different from each other (See ¶[0021], which reveals that the “unfiltered version of the current picture” is used for IntraBC prediction, while the filtered version undergoes operations including deblocking and SAO)
Regarding claim 4, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the video decoding method of claim 3, wherein the loop filtering process comprises at least one of the following: deblocking loop filtering (DBF);sample adaptive offset (SAO) loop filtering; luma mapping with chroma scaling (LMCS); or neural-network-based loop filtering (NNF) (See ¶¶[0025] ).
Regarding claim 5, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the video decoding method of claim 1, wherein acquiring the reference frame information of the to-be-decoded video frame comprises: parsing a video coded bitstream (See ¶¶[0068] and [0071] ).to obtain the reference frame information of the to-be-decoded video frame, wherein the reference frame information comprises at least one picture order count of at least one reference frame (See ¶¶ [0017] and [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the video decoding method of claim 5, wherein determining the reference picture list of the to-be-decoded video frame based on the reference frame information and the supplementary frame information comprises: determining a first reference picture list and a second reference picture list based on the at least one picture order count of the at least one reference frame (See ¶¶ [0017] and [0018]).
Regarding claim 7, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the video decoding method of claim 6, wherein
the first reference picture list comprises a first decoded picture (; and the second reference picture list comprises the first decoded picture, wherein a picture order count of the first decoded picture is equal to one of the at least one picture order count of the at least one reference frame (See ¶¶[0016]-[0018] ),
Liu does not explicitly disclose the supplementary frame information of the first decoded picture is equal to first supplementary frame information.
However, Lai from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the supplementary frame information of the first decoded picture is equal to first supplementary frame information (See ¶¶[0065]-[0067] ).
The motivation for combining Liu and Lai has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 8, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the video decoding method of claim 7, wherein a second decoded picture is further comprised in at least one of the first reference picture list or the second reference picture list (See ¶¶[0055]-[0057]), and wherein a picture order count of the second decoded picture is equal to the picture order count of the first decoded picture (See ¶¶[0063]-[0066] ).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the supplementary frame information of the second decoded picture is equal to second supplementary frame information.
However, Lai from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the supplementary frame information of the second decoded picture is equal to second supplementary frame information (See ¶¶[0065]-[0067] ).
The motivation for combining Liu and Lai has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 9, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the video decoding method of claim 8, wherein the second decoded picture is configured in at least one of the following manners: the second decoded picture is configured to be a first picture of the first reference picture list or a first picture of the second reference picture list; the second decoded picture is configured to be a last picture of the first reference picture list or a last picture of the second reference picture list; the second decoded picture is configured to be a second last picture of the first reference picture list or a second last picture of the second reference picture list; the second decoded picture is configured to replace the first decoded picture; or the second decoded picture is configured to be located at a specified position according to indication information of the video coded bitstream (See ¶¶[0057] and [0065]).
Regarding claim 10, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 2, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the video decoding method of claim 2, wherein storing the first reconstructed picture and the decoded picture of the to-be-decoded video frame in the decoded picture buffer and configuring the supplementary frame information for the first reconstructed picture and the decoded picture of the to-be-decoded video frame comprises: storing the first reconstructed picture and the decoded picture in the decoded picture buffer (See ¶¶[0024], [0065] and [0066] ).
Liu does not explicitly disclose the configuring first supplementary frame information for the first reconstructed picture, and configuring second supplementary frame information for the decoded picture.
However, Lai from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the configuring first supplementary frame information for the first reconstructed picture, and configuring second supplementary frame information for the decoded picture (See ¶¶[0065] and [0066] ).
The motivation for combining Liu and Lai has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 11, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Liu discloses the video decoding method of claim 10, further comprising: determining a second reconstructed picture based on a luma component of the first reconstructed picture and a chroma component of the decoded picture (See ¶¶[0024], [0097] and [0098] )
storing the second reconstructed picture in the picture buffer (See ¶¶[0065] and [0066] )
Liu does not explicitly disclose the configuring second supplementary frame information for the second reconstructed picture.
However, Lai from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the configuring second supplementary frame information for the second reconstructed picture (See ¶¶[0065] and [0066] ).
The motivation for combining Liu and Lai has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a device for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Liu and Lai discloses a video processing device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and executable by the processor, wherein when executing the computer program, the processor performs a video decoding method ( See Liu [0116] and Lai ¶0093])
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Liu and Lai discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon for performing a video decoding method ( See Liu [0116] and Lai ¶0093])
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, in view of Lai, and further, in view of Vidyo et al. (“High efficiency video coding (HEVC) scalable extension Draft 7” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 18th Meeting: Sapporo, JP, 30 June – 9 July 2014
Document: JCTVC-R1008v7 ), hereinafter referred to as Vidyo.
Regarding claim 12, Liu and Lai disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Liu does not explicitly disclose a video decoding method, applied to a video frame that comprises a temporal layer identifier, comprising: in response to the temporal layer identifier of a to-be-decoded video frame being less than a preset threshold.
However, Vidyo from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses a video decoding method, applied to a video frame that comprises a temporal layer identifier, comprising: in response to the temporal layer identifier of a to-be-decoded video frame being less than a preset threshold.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Liu and Lai to add the teachings of Vidyo as above, in order to select only temporally permitted reference picture for decoding (Vidyo, p. 32).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights