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 § 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite “computer readable recording medium". 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 four categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The examiner advises the applicant to add the term non-transitory to the claim language in order to overcome the 101 issue. Further, if the non-transitory medium performs steps in the claims, there needs to be instructions executable by a processor to perform the steps. The specification appears to use non-transitory when discussing the computer readable recording medium. However, there is no explicit definition of the CRM being non-transitory.
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.
Claims 14 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a transmitting step in the body of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0227222) (hereinafter Lee).
In regard to claim 13, claim 13 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, claim 13 and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim 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. Therefore, claim 13 is anticipated by Lee, as Lee discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream. Lee discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts [¶0024; computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a video coding method] comprising:
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen US 20230345023 in view of Lee US 20220312010.
Regarding claim 1, Chen disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
A method of decoding an image performed by an image decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
acquiring geometric partitioning mode (GPM) information on the basis of application of a GPM to a current block (i.e. GPM indicated using index. Information decoded from a bitstream) [69-70,168-169; fig. 4a,b,11];
determining at least one of a partition shape of the GPM and a blending area on the basis of the acquired GPM information (i.e. partition edge signaled using angle index and GPM index. Blending area determined using the partition edge.) [77-79,91,150; fig. 6];
refining at least one of the the blending area on the basis of template matching (TM) (i.e. TM applied to GPM to refine motion. Blending area can be changed. Adaptive blending with TM can be applied.) [89-92,109,152,156-159; fig. 8a,b]; and
generating a prediction block for the current block by executing the GPM on the current block on the basis of the refined partition shape or the refined blending area (i.e reconstruct samples within blending area) [182; fig. 11].
Chen do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
refining at least one of the partition shape and the blending area on the basis of template matching (TM); and
However, in the same field of endeavor Lee discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
refining at least one of the partition shape and the blending area on the basis of template matching (TM) (i.e. partition edge refined using templates) [125-139; fig. 18]; and
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Chen with Lee to have refining at least one of the partition shape and the blending area on the basis of template matching (TM).
It would be advantageous because "For example, larger block partitions may be used in areas of a picture with higher levels of homogeneity to improve coding efficiency.” [65].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Chen with Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, selecting one of the partition shape candidates on the basis of TM costs (i.e. TM applied to GPM to refine motion. Blending area can be changed. Adaptive blending with TM can be applied.) [89-92,109,152,156-159; fig. 8a,b]; and
Chen do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the refining of the partition shape comprises: deriving one or more partition shape candidates;
refining the partition shape on the basis of the selected partition shape candidate.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lee discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the refining of the partition shape comprises: deriving one or more partition shape candidates (i.e. candidate edges 1814 used and are based on reference samples and used to refine partition shape) [130,136; fig. 19];
refining the partition shape on the basis of the selected partition shape candidate (i.e. candidate edges 1814 used and are based on reference samples and used to refine partition shape) [130,136; fig. 19].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Chen with Lee to have wherein the refining of the partition shape comprises: deriving one or more partition shape candidates;
refining the partition shape on the basis of the selected partition shape candidate.
It would be advantageous because "For example, larger block partitions may be used in areas of a picture with higher levels of homogeneity to improve coding efficiency.” [65].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Chen with Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 2, wherein the partition shape candidate includes at least one of a partition direction candidate and a distance candidate (i.e. candidate direction (4a) and distance (4b)) [5; fig. 4a,b].
Regarding claim 4, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the refining of the blending area comprises: deriving one or more blending area candidates (i.e. width candidate) [109]; selecting one of the blending area candidates on the basis of TM costs (i.e. width candidates used in adaptive blending processing with TM) [109]; and refining the blending area on the basis of the selected blending area candidate (i.e. candidates reordered and reconstructed using the adaptive blending process) [109-111].
Regarding claim 5, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 4, wherein the blending area candidates are derived by adding or subtracting a certain size to or from a signaled blending area of the current block (i.e. width candidates are added and subtracted from the partition edge line) [79; fig. 4c].
Regarding claim 6, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein both sides of the blending area have different sizes on the basis of a partitioning boundary of the GPM (i.e. unless idx0 is chosen, one of the areas of the blending area would be different sizes) [fig. 4b,c].
Regarding claim 7, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein the GPM information includes information on the sizes of both sides (i.e. candidate width (information) applies to both sides) [fig. 4b,c].
Regarding claim 9, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 4, wherein the determining of the blending area comprises: reordering the blending area candidates on the basis of TM; and selecting one of the reordered blending area candidates (i.e. candidates reordered and reconstructed using the adaptive blending process) [109-111].
Claim 12 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1. This is the encoder of claim 1. Corresponding encoder disclosed in [fig. 3,10]
Claim 13 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 14 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Lee in view of JVET doc (JVET-AB1000 cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 10, Chen and Lee do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the GPM is a spatial GPM (SGPM).
However, in the same field of endeavor JVET discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the GPM is a spatial GPM (SGPM) [p147-149].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Chen and Lee with JVET to have the GPM is a spatial GPM.
It would be advantageous because spatial GPM would be useful in situations where there is a shape to match with the partition to enable efficient compression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Chen and Lee with JVET to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, JVET meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating an intra prediction mode (IPM) list to derive an IPM of the current block, wherein IPM candidates included in the IPM list are derived on the basis of the partition shape of the GPM [p147-149].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights