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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENCODING/DECODING IMAGE AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR STORING BITSTREAM INVOLVING PERFORMING WEIGHTED SUMMATION OF INTER PREDICITON BLOCK AND INTRA PREDICITON BLOCK.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains legal phraseology such as “comprises”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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) 1, 3-9, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0051467 A1 (“Zhou”) in view of US 2026/0052247 A1 (“Chen”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a method for decoding an image (e.g. see video decoder 400 in Fig. 4 and hybrid coding/decoding in Fig. 2), the method comprising:
generating an inter prediction block of a current block (e.g. see inter-coding predictor 230 generating inter predicted pixel for the pixel block as shown in Fig. 2);
generating an intra prediction block of the current block (e.g. see intra-coding predictor 220 generating intra predicted pixel for the pixel block as shown in Fig. 2); and
generating a final prediction block of the current block by performing weighted summation of the inter prediction block and the intra prediction block (e.g. see final predicted pixel generated by performing weighted summation of the inter predicted pixel and the intra predicted pixel as shown in Fig. 2),
wherein the intra prediction block is generated (e.g. see intra-coding predictor 220 generating intra predicted pixel for the pixel block as shown in Fig. 2 based on intra-coding mode or I coding mode, paragraphs [0004]-[0005]; for example, for I decoding, the prediction unit 475 may utilize decoded pixel block data of a pixel block from the same frame as the input pixel block as the predicted pixel block… the intra-prediction block (for the hybrid coding shown in Fig. 2) may be generated as discussed above for I coding, paragraph [0036]).
Although Zhou discloses wherein the intra prediction block is generated, it is noted Zhou differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose based on one of intra template matching prediction and intra block copy. Chen however, teaches based on one of intra template matching prediction and intra block copy (e.g. see intra template matching prediction (intraTMP) is a special intra prediction mode that copies the best prediction block from the reconstructed part of the current frame, whose L-shaped template matches the current template, paragraphs [0088]-[0089] and e.g. see intra-block copy, paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Zhou and Chen before him/her, to modify the Hybrid inter/intra prediction in video coding systems of Zhou with the teachings of Chen in order to allow IBC and/or IntraTMP to be used for natural content, in addition to screen content, thus providing for additional coding modes to further increase coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in view of Chen further teaches wherein, when the intra prediction block is generated based on intra block copy, a block vector used for the intra block copy is determined based on a motion vector that is used to generate the inter prediction block (note: its base claim 1 recites “based on one of” in the last limitation “wherein the intra prediction block is generated based on one of intra template matching prediction and intra block copy”. Since its base claim is met when the intra prediction block is generated based on intra template matching prediction (e.g. see Chen: intraTMP, paragraphs [0088]-[0089]), these limitations are also met under BRI). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 4, Zhou in view of Chen further teaches wherein the block vector is derived by adding a vector difference value to the motion vector (note: its base claim 1 recites “based on one of” in the last limitation “wherein the intra prediction block is generated based on one of intra template matching prediction and intra block copy”. Since its base claim is met when the intra prediction block is generated based on intra template matching prediction (e.g. see Chen: intraTMP, paragraphs [0088]-[0089]), these limitations are also met under BRI). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 5, Zhou in view of Chen further teaches wherein the vector difference value is obtained from a bitstream (note: its base claim 1 recites “based on one of” in the last limitation “wherein the intra prediction block is generated based on one of intra template matching prediction and intra block copy”. Since its base claim is met when the intra prediction block is generated based on intra template matching prediction (e.g. see Chen: intraTMP, paragraphs [0088]-[0089]), these limitations are also met under BRI). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Chen further teaches wherein the block vector is derived based on a distance between a current picture including the current block and a reference picture that is used to generate the inter prediction block (note: its base claim 1 recites “based on one of” in the last limitation “wherein the intra prediction block is generated based on one of intra template matching prediction and intra block copy”. Since its base claim is met when the intra prediction block is generated based on intra template matching prediction (e.g. see Chen: intraTMP, paragraphs [0088]-[0089]), these limitations are also met under BRI). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 7, Zhou in view of Chen further teaches wherein a resolution of the block vector is adjusted based on a resolution of the motion vector (note: its base claim 1 recites “based on one of” in the last limitation “wherein the intra prediction block is generated based on one of intra template matching prediction and intra block copy”. Since its base claim is met when the intra prediction block is generated based on intra template matching prediction (e.g. see Chen: intraTMP, paragraphs [0088]-[0089]), these limitations are also met under BRI). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 8, Zhou in view of Chen further teaches wherein a resolution of the motion vector is adjusted based on a resolution of the block vector (note: its base claim 1 recites “based on one of” in the last limitation “wherein the intra prediction block is generated based on one of intra template matching prediction and intra block copy”. Since its base claim is met when the intra prediction block is generated based on intra template matching prediction (e.g. see Chen: intraTMP, paragraphs [0088]-[0089]), these limitations are also met under BRI). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 9, Zhou further discloses wherein the weighted summation is performed by applying an inter prediction weight and an intra prediction weight to the inter prediction block and the intra prediction block, respectively (e.g. see inter weights and intra weights as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 12, 14, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0051467 A1 (“Zhou”) in view of US 2026/0052247 A1 (“Chen”) in further view of US 2013/0114720 A1 (“Wang”).
Regarding claim 2, although Zhou discloses wherein an inter prediction mode is generated (e.g. see inter-coding predictor 230 generating inter predicted pixel for the pixel block as shown in Fig. 2), it is noted Zhou differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose by performing inter prediction of a merge mode. Wang however, teaches by performing inter prediction of a merge mode (e.g. see merge mode, Abstract, paragraph [0011]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Zhou, Chen and Wang before him/her, to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the Hybrid inter/intra prediction in video coding systems of Zhou as modified by Chen in order to improve coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0051467 A1 (“Zhou”) in view of US 2026/0052247 A1 (“Chen”) in further view of US 2022/0408082 A1 (“Bordes”).
Regarding claim 10, although Zhou discloses wherein the inter prediction weight and the intra prediction weight are determined (e.g. see inter weights and intra weights shown in Fig. 2, paragraphs [0026]-[0030]), it is noted Zhou differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose based on a distortion value of the inter prediction block and a distortion value of the intra prediction block. Bordes however, teaches based on a distortion value of the inter prediction block and a distortion value of the intra prediction block (e.g. see weights WA for inter and WB for intra, paragraphs [0101]-[0103], and see optimizing in accordance with a rate/distortion criterion among the prediction modes tested, paragraph [0104]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Zhou, Chen and Bordes before him/her, to incorporate the teachings of Bordes into the Hybrid inter/intra prediction in video coding systems of Zhou as modified by Chen in order to reduce complexity of encoding and decoding process and improve prediction accuracy.
Regarding claim 11, although Zhou discloses wherein the inter prediction weight and the intra prediction weight are determined (e.g. see inter weights and intra weights shown in Fig. 2, paragraphs [0026]-[0030]), it is noted Zhou differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose based on a prediction mode of at least two neighboring blocks of the current block. Bordes however, teaches based on a prediction mode of at least two neighboring blocks of the current block (e.g. see the intra and inter prediction signals are combined using weighted averaging, where the weight values are calculated depending on the coding modes of the top and left neighbor blocks, paragraphs [0101]-[0104]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 10 applies here.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250247557 A1, Ma et al., Methods And Devices For Intra Block Copy And Intra Template Matching
US 20240414327 A1, Paluri et al., CIIP-BASED PREDICTION METHOD AND DEVICE
US 9374578 B1, Mukherjee et al., Video Coding Using Combined Inter And Intra Predictors
US 20070047648 A1, Tourapis et al., Method And Apparatus For Encoding Hybrid Intra-inter Coded Blocks
US 11818383 B2, Chiang et al., Methods And Apparatuses Of Combining Multiple Predictors For Block Prediction In Video Coding Systems
US 20220264142 A1, Hashimoto et al., IMAGE DECODING APPARATUS, IMAGE CODING APPARATUS, AND IMAGE DECODING METHOD
US 20240031557 A1, Ruiz Coll et al., Block Vector Predictor Candidate Selection
US 11895290 B2, Wiegand et al., Composed Prediction And Restricted Merge
US 12526401 B2, Wang, Method For Video Encoding/decoding And Bitstream Transmission
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights