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 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-10 and 17-20, drawn to a regression-based prediction model derivation for L0/L1 blending weights for generation of bi-predictive values, which can be seen in [0006 and 0155-0158] and Fig. 10.
Group II, claim(s) 11-16, drawn to template-sample regression for different prediction modes, which can be seen in [0007 and 0159-0163] and Fig. 11.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
Group I employs a regression-based prediction model to determine blending weights for List 0 (LO) and List 1 (L1) reference frames and utilizes the determined blending weights to generate bi-predictive values for pixels in a coding unit (CU). This is different from Group II which derives a set of regression parameters including weights for cross-prediction sample blending by regression using template samples in a specific region, applying the set of regression parameters to reference predictors to derive prediction samples for the CU, and adjusting the set of regression parameters based on a prediction error metric.
Group II derives a set of regression parameters including weights for cross-prediction sample blending by regression using template samples in a specific region, applying the set of regression parameters to reference predictors to derive prediction samples for the CU, and adjusting the set of regression parameters based on a prediction error metric. This is different from group I which employs a regression-based prediction model to determine blending weights for List 0 (LO) and List 1 (L1) reference frames and utilizes the determined blending weights to generate bi-predictive values for pixels in a coding unit (CU).
The technical features are different in the comparison of Groups I and II.
During a telephone conversation with Daniel McClure (Reg. No. 38,962) on 09/17/2026 and 09/18/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10 and 17-20. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-16 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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) 1-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (Hereafter, “Chuang”) [US 2018/0098086 A1] in view of Xiu et al. (Hereafter, “Xiu”) [US 2020/0336738 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Chuang discloses a method of video coding ([0002] This application is related to video coding and compression. More specifically, this application relates to systems and methods of performing improved local illumination compensation.), comprising: employing a regression-based prediction model to determine blending weights for List 0 (LO) and List 1 (L1) reference frames ([0151] a linear least square regression can be used to estimate the LIC parameters in bi-predictive motion compensation [0150] Illumination compensation parameters can include an offset, one or more weights, a shift number, or other suitable illumination compensation parameters.), wherein the regression-based prediction model includes at least a LO term associated with the LO reference frame, a L1 term associated with the L1 reference frame, and a bias term ([0155] The term o is the offset, and the terms w.sub.0 and w.sub.1 are the weights. The weights w.sub.0 and w.sub.1 and the offset o are used to compensate for the discrepancy induced by illumination changes in a series of picture. For example, the offset o can indicate the average luminance change by considering the two reference frames simultaneously. The weight w.sub.0 is multiplied by the prediction samples generated from the reference block 1404 (from List0), which are the samples in the template P0 shown in FIG. 14. The weight w.sub.1 is multiplied by the prediction samples generated from the reference block 1406 (from List1), which are the samples in the template P1 shown in FIG. 14.); utilizing the determined blending weights to generate bi-predictive values for pixels in a coding unit (CU) based on values of corresponding pixels in LO and L1 reference frames ([0164] The final prediction samples are created by Equation (9). [0165] The final prediction sample P(x,y) represents a sample value that will be used for a sample at a position (x,y) in the current block 1402. As described herein, the application of the LIC can be integrated into the conventional bi-predictive motion compensation. When considering the template-based search to find the optimal weight, Eq. (9) can still be used to apply the optimal weights during bi-predictive motion compensation.); and deriving the blending weights based on a Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the bi-predictive values and actual pixel values within the CU ([0156] Eq. (4) can be solved using ordinary linear least-square regression to obtain the values of the weights w.sub.0 and w.sub.1 and the offset o.).
Xiu discloses deriving the blending weights based on a Mean Squared Error (MSE) between the bi-predictive values and actual pixel values within the CU ([0007] The differences between the bi-predicted reference template samples and the template samples for the current CU may be minimized based on a least mean square error (LMSE) approach. In examples, the LIC parameters may he calculated based on a linear model approach using a minimum value and a maximum value associated with the bi-predicted reference template samples and the template samples for the current CU. The calculated UC parameters may be applied to the bi-predicted CU and generate an adjusted bi-predicted current CU.).
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 Chuang with the explicit use of a least mean square error approach for the calculation of the LIC parameters as taught by Xiu in order to improve motion compensated prediction for bi-prediction mode [See Xiu].
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chuang discloses wherein the regression-based prediction model further comprises one or more of spatial gradient terms, location terms, nonlinear terms, and differences between the LO and L1 terms ([0156] Eq. (4) can be solved using ordinary linear least-square regression to obtain the values of the weights w.sub.0 and w.sub.1 and the offset o.).
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chuang discloses wherein the MSE includes one or more regularization terms to constrain one or more of the blending weights ([0159] The regularization parameter λ is also used (for each of the terms a-e), as described below.).
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of claim 3 have been addressed. Chuang discloses wherein the one or more regularization terms constrain the LO term and the L1 term to a set of preconfigured blending weights [0158, 0162-0163, and Equations 6-8].
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 3 have been addressed. Chuang discloses wherein the one or more regularization terms constrain a sum of the LO term and the L1 term [0158 and Equation 6].
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 3 have been addressed. Chuang discloses wherein the one or more regularization terms constrain a ratio between the LO term and the L1 term [0153-0154 and Equation 4].
Regarding claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chuang discloses further comprising: transmitting an indicator indicating whether the regression-based prediction model is enabled; and bypassing both signaling of a set of preconfigured blending weights and Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) when the indicator indicates that the regression-based prediction model is enabled ([0166] In some examples, more than one derivation method to derive the LIC parameters can be performed. In such examples, the encoder or other transmitter-side device can signal to the decoder which derivation method is to be used at a sequence level (e.g., in the VPS and/or the SPS), at the picture level (e.g., in the PPS), at the slice level (e.g., in the slice header), at the CTU level, at CU level, at PU level, or a combination thereof, or other suitable signaling level. [0170] The value of Default.sub.W0 and Default.sub.W1 can be set to any suitable value, and can be signaled in the bitstream at different levels, such as at the picture level, the slice level, the block level, or at the level of a group of blocks. As one example, the weighted prediction parameter signaled in the slice header can be used to derive the value of Default.sub.W0 and Default.sub.W1. [0191] In some examples, one or more systems and methods are also provided for adaptive selection of weights from a pre-defined set of weights. For example, a template-based solution can be used to search for one more optimal weights out of the pre-defined set of weights without having to signal the choice of weights to the decoder. The adaptive weight selection can be used for any template matching based motion prediction or compensation, such as LIC, weighted prediction (WP), or other prediction or compensation techniques that utilize weights in the prediction process. [0192] For example, if a pre-defined set of weights are considered during the bi-predictive motion compensation, a template-based method can be utilized to search for the optimal set of weights without having to signal the choice of weights to the decoder. Note that this method can be applied to both LIC-enabled and LIC-disabled cases, and hence can be applied independently from some or all of the other methods described herein. Such methods and the examples below can be applied to bi-predicted blocks and/or uni-predicted blocks.).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Chuang discloses further comprising: transmitting a first indicator indicating whether Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) is enabled ([0119] An IC flag is coded for each PU to indicate whether IC applies for current PU or not.); transmitting a second indicator indicating whether the regression-based prediction model is enabled ([0166] In some examples, more than one derivation method to derive the LIC parameters can be performed. In such examples, the encoder or other transmitter-side device can signal to the decoder which derivation method is to be used at a sequence level (e.g., in the VPS and/or the SPS), at the picture level (e.g., in the PPS), at the slice level (e.g., in the slice header), at the CTU level, at CU level, at PU level, or a combination thereof, or other suitable signaling level.).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 8 have been addressed. Chuang discloses wherein the second indicator indicates that the regression-based prediction model is enabled, further comprising: disabling signaling of a set of preconfigured blending weights, wherein the regression-based prediction model is employed in response to the second indicator ([0166] In some examples, more than one derivation method to derive the LIC parameters can be performed. In such examples, the encoder or other transmitter-side device can signal to the decoder which derivation method is to be used at a sequence level (e.g., in the VPS and/or the SPS), at the picture level (e.g., in the PPS), at the slice level (e.g., in the slice header), at the CTU level, at CU level, at PU level, or a combination thereof, or other suitable signaling level. [0170] The value of Default.sub.W0 and Default.sub.W1 can be set to any suitable value, and can be signaled in the bitstream at different levels, such as at the picture level, the slice level, the block level, or at the level of a group of blocks. As one example, the weighted prediction parameter signaled in the slice header can be used to derive the value of Default.sub.W0 and Default.sub.W1. [0191] In some examples, one or more systems and methods are also provided for adaptive selection of weights from a pre-defined set of weights. For example, a template-based solution can be used to search for one more optimal weights out of the pre-defined set of weights without having to signal the choice of weights to the decoder. The adaptive weight selection can be used for any template matching based motion prediction or compensation, such as LIC, weighted prediction (WP), or other prediction or compensation techniques that utilize weights in the prediction process. [0192] For example, if a pre-defined set of weights are considered during the bi-predictive motion compensation, a template-based method can be utilized to search for the optimal set of weights without having to signal the choice of weights to the decoder. Note that this method can be applied to both LIC-enabled and LIC-disabled cases, and hence can be applied independently from some or all of the other methods described herein. Such methods and the examples below can be applied to bi-predicted blocks and/or uni-predicted blocks.).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations of claim 8 have been addressed. Chuang discloses wherein the second indicator indicates that the regression-based prediction model is enabled, further comprising: proceeding with signaling of a set of preconfigured blending weights, wherein the regression-based prediction model is employed in response to the second indicator ([0166] In some examples, more than one derivation method to derive the LIC parameters can be performed. In such examples, the encoder or other transmitter-side device can signal to the decoder which derivation method is to be used at a sequence level (e.g., in the VPS and/or the SPS), at the picture level (e.g., in the PPS), at the slice level (e.g., in the slice header), at the CTU level, at CU level, at PU level, or a combination thereof, or other suitable signaling level. [0170] The value of Default.sub.W0 and Default.sub.W1 can be set to any suitable value, and can be signaled in the bitstream at different levels, such as at the picture level, the slice level, the block level, or at the level of a group of blocks. As one example, the weighted prediction parameter signaled in the slice header can be used to derive the value of Default.sub.W0 and Default.sub.W1. [0191] In some examples, one or more systems and methods are also provided for adaptive selection of weights from a pre-defined set of weights. For example, a template-based solution can be used to search for one more optimal weights out of the pre-defined set of weights without having to signal the choice of weights to the decoder. The adaptive weight selection can be used for any template matching based motion prediction or compensation, such as LIC, weighted prediction (WP), or other prediction or compensation techniques that utilize weights in the prediction process. [0192] For example, if a pre-defined set of weights are considered during the bi-predictive motion compensation, a template-based method can be utilized to search for the optimal set of weights without having to signal the choice of weights to the decoder. Note that this method can be applied to both LIC-enabled and LIC-disabled cases, and hence can be applied independently from some or all of the other methods described herein. Such methods and the examples below can be applied to bi-predicted blocks and/or uni-predicted blocks.).
Claim 17 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 17. Furthermore, regarding claim 17, Chuang discloses a video coding apparatus, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory ([0007] In another example, an apparatus for processing video data is provided that includes a memory configured to store video data and a processor.).
Claim 18 lists all the same elements of claim 2, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 18.
Claim 19 lists all the same elements of claim 3, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 19.
Claim 20 lists all the same elements of claim 4, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 20.
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
