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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-27 have been cancelled. Claims 28-47 have been added. Claims 28-47 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 28-32, 35-39, and 42-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (Hereafter, “Sun”) [US 2019/0082193 A1].
In regard to claim 28, Sun discloses a device for video decoding ([Abstract] a video decoder), comprising: a processor ([0041] Video decoder 30 may be implemented as any of a variety of suitable circuitry, such as one or more microprocessors, digital signal processors (DSPs).) configured to: identify a reference picture, the reference picture comprising a first region and a second region divided by a boundary ([0081 and Fig. 4A] Current block 402 has a motion vector 404 that indicates a location of a reference block 406 partially outside a boundary (i.e., a frame boundary) of a reference frame 408.); propagate a plurality of sample values from the second region to the first region ([0081] In FIG. 4A, each circle in reference block 406 represents a pixel with pixel value N, where N in this context is not related to N as used in the picture numbers of FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B. The pixel values outside the frame boundary of reference frame 408 are inferred as the nearest pixel values inside the boundary. In other words, the decoder repeats the boundary pixel values to extend the frame boundary as shown in FIG. 4B. This technique is called replicate frame padding.); and decode a current block based on the plurality of propagated sample values ([0081] After padding, the decoder can access reference frame 408, which now has larger size than the size of the original version of reference frame 408. [0082] The video coder may encode or decode one or more blocks of video data based on the padded pixels.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the different examples of Sun to include the additional features for the system [Official Notice].
In regard to claim 29, the limitations of claim 28 have been addressed. Sun discloses wherein the plurality of propagated sample values is propagated from the second region to a subset of the first region ([0081] In FIG. 4A, each circle in reference block 406 represents a pixel with pixel value N, where N in this context is not related to N as used in the picture numbers of FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B. The pixel values outside the frame boundary of reference frame 408 are inferred as the nearest pixel values inside the boundary. In other words, the decoder repeats the boundary pixel values to extend the frame boundary as shown in FIG. 4B. This technique is called replicate frame padding.).
In regard to claim 30, the limitations of claim 29 have been addressed. Sun discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that a sample position is within the subset of the first region; and based on the sample position being within the subset of the first region, pad the sample position with a sample value propagated from the second region ([0081] In FIG. 4A, each circle in reference block 406 represents a pixel with pixel value N, where N in this context is not related to N as used in the picture numbers of FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B. The pixel values outside the frame boundary of reference frame 408 are inferred as the nearest pixel values inside the boundary. In other words, the decoder repeats the boundary pixel values to extend the frame boundary as shown in FIG. 4B. This technique is called replicate frame padding. For example, in FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B, the outside pixel values on the first column are inferred as the nearest pixel value inside the boundary, 1; the outside pixel values on the second column are inferred as the nearest pixel value inside the boundary, 2; and the outside pixel values on the third column are inferred as the nearest pixel value inside the boundary, 3.).
In regard to claim 31, the limitations of claim 28 have been addressed. Sun discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a reference block in the first region of the reference picture ([0085] the video coder may identify a boundary block 508 located within padding boundary 506 of reference frame 500); identify a motion compensated block associated with the reference block ([0085] Assuming boundary block 508 has a motion vector 510, the video coder may use motion vector 510 to identify a position 512 in reference frame 502.); and pad the reference block with sample values of the motion compensated block ([0085] In the example of FIG. 5, the video coder may determine values of padded pixels 516 based on values of samples in sample block 514. For instance, the video coder may use the values of samples in sample block 514 as the values of samples in padded pixels 516.).
In regard to claim 32, the limitations of claim 31 have been addressed. Sun discloses wherein the reference picture is a first reference picture ([0084 and Fig. 5] Reference frame 500 is a first reference picture for the current frame (not shown in FIG. 5).), and wherein the processor is further configured to: identify a second reference picture, the second reference picture comprising a first region and a second region divided by a boundary ([0084 and Fig. 5] a reference frame 502 is a second reference picture for the current frame); determine that the sample values of the motion compensated block are within the second region of the second reference picture ([0085] Assuming boundary block 508 has a motion vector 510, the video coder may use motion vector 510 to identify a position 512 in reference frame 502. The video coder may then determine a sample block 514 in reference frame 502 having the same dimensions as the current block.); and based on the sample values of the motion compensated block being within the second region of the second reference picture, pad the first region of the first reference picture using the sample values of the motion compensated block ([0085] In the example of FIG. 5, the video coder may determine values of padded pixels 516 based on values of samples in sample block 514. For instance, the video coder may use the values of samples in sample block 514 as the values of samples in padded pixels 516.).
Claim 35 lists all the same elements of claim 28, but in method form rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 28 applies equally as well to claim 35.
Claim 36 lists all the same elements of claim 29, but in method form rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 29 applies equally as well to claim 36.
Claim 37 lists all the same elements of claim 30, but in method form rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 30 applies equally as well to claim 37.
Claim 38 lists all the same elements of claim 31, but in method form rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 31 applies equally as well to claim 38.
Claim 39 lists all the same elements of claim 32, but in method form rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 32 applies equally as well to claim 39.
Claim 42 lists all the same elements of claim 28, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 28 applies equally as well to claim 42.
Claim 43 lists all the same elements of claim 29, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 29 applies equally as well to claim 43.
Claim 44 lists all the same elements of claim 30, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 30 applies equally as well to claim 44.
Claim 45 lists all the same elements of claim 31, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 31 applies equally as well to claim 45.
Claim 46 lists all the same elements of claim 32, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 32 applies equally as well to claim 46.
Claim(s) 33, 34, 40, 41, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Wang et al. (Hereafter, “Wang”) [US 2023/0031540 A1].
In regard to claim 33, the limitations of claim 28 have been addressed. Sun fails to explicitly disclose whether the processor is further configured to: store the reference picture with the propagated sample values in a buffer; and predict the current block based on reference picture having the propagated sample values stored in the buffer.
Wang discloses whether the processor is further configured to: store the reference picture with the propagated sample values in a buffer; and predict the current block based on reference picture having the propagated sample values stored in the buffer ([0082] A Decoded Picture Buffer (DPB) may be used in the encoder and/or in the decoder. There are at least two reasons to buffer decoded pictures, for references in inter prediction and for reordering decoded pictures into output order. As H.264/AVC and HEVC provide a great deal of flexibility for both reference picture marking and output reordering, separate buffers for reference picture buffering and output picture buffering may waste memory resources. Hence, the DPB may include a unified decoded picture buffering process for reference pictures and output reordering. A decoded picture may be removed from the DPB when it is no longer used as a reference and is not needed for output.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sun with reference picture buffering as taught by Wang in order to improve the quality and flexibility of the coding process [See Wang].
In regard to claim 34, the limitations of claim 28 have been addressed. Sun fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain an indication that indicates the sample values propagated from the second region to the first region can be used for decoding, wherein decoding the current block based on the propagated sample values is performed based on the indication.
Wang discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain an indication that indicates the sample values propagated from the second region to the first region can be used for decoding, wherein decoding the current block based on the propagated sample values is performed based on the indication ([0098] With gdr_virtual_boundaries_treated_as_pic_boundaries_flag set to 1 (or virtual boundary treated as “picture boundary”), for intra CUs in clean area, the reference samples in dirty area are considered “not available”, and therefore, if needed, they will be replaced by the reference samples from the clean area according to the current VVC design. [0099] With gdr_virtual_boundaries_treated_as_pic_boundaries_flag set to 1 (or virtual boundary treated as “picture boundary”), for inter CUs in clean area, the reconstructed pixels in dirty area of reference pixels will be padded from the reconstructed pixels in clean area (or set to a pre-determined value, e.g. 2{circumflex over ( )}(BD-1)), which will give prediction blocks the freedom over the entire reference pictures, instead of being limited to the clean areas of reference pictures.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sun with set flag for indicating if they pixels in an area are available as taught by Wang in order to improve the quality and flexibility of the coding process [See Wang].
Claim 40 lists all the same elements of claim 33, but in method form rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 33 applies equally as well to claim 40.
Claim 41 lists all the same elements of claim 34, but in method form rather than device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 34 applies equally as well to claim 41.
Claim 47 lists all the same elements of claim 33, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 33 applies equally as well to claim 47.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
