DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 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.
2. Claim 12 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is directed to, a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method. The limitation as recited in the preamble does not make it clear whether the computer readable medium contains instructions to perform the encoding process or not. Additionally, it is not clear if the encoding process is operating on the bitstream stored on the medium or not since the claim appears to recite two separate functions.
In accordance with compact prosecution as prescribed in MPEP 2173.06, claim language is interpreted as follows: Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when
there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05
III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a
functional relationship exists if the programming "performs some function with respect to the computer
with which it is associated." Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium
merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information
or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
However, Claim 12 is directed to, a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method. The body of the claim appears to indicate how the bitstream is being generated or encoded. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended
computer. This shows that the computer-readable storage medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. And, the claim as a whole considered as a storage media, for string a bitstream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-2,4,6,8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (WO 2019/031703).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo discloses an image decoding method (e.g., figs. 1-2), comprising; deriving
a prediction sample of a current block based on a linear model parameter of the current block (e.g., abstract, entire disclosure), deriving a residual sample of the current block (e.g., residual processing unit as shown in fig. 1, also indication of, subtraction unit 121 generates residual samples, throughout the disclosure), and reconstructing the current block based on the prediction sample and the residual sample of the current block (e.g., figs. 1-2, entire disclosure, The adder 140 combines the residual
sample and the predicted sample to reconstruct the picture. The residual samples and the prediction
samples are added in units of blocks so that a reconstruction block can be generated), wherein the linear model parameter is derived based on one or more reference samples within a neighboring region of the current block (e.g., abstract, entire disclosure, a linear model of the corresponding luma block and the current chroma block may be derived based on neighbor samples of the corresponding luma block
and neighboring samples of the current chroma block …), and wherein the prediction sample is derived
by applying the linear model parameter to at least one of a coordinate of the prediction sample within
the current block or a pre-reconstructed sample around the current block (e.g., indication of, Pct 0009.tif, Pred .sub.cb (i, j) is the predicted sample of the (i, j) coordinate of the current chroma
block and rec .sub.Y '(i, j) is the restoration luma sample of the (i, j) ? can be the coefficient, and? can represent the offset. On the other hand, the rec .sub.Y '(i, j) may represent a down-sampled restoration luma sample of the corresponding luma block. In the meantime, as described above, the parameter α and the parameter β of the relational expressions representing the linear model are the same as the neighboring samples used in the intra prediction of the current luma block and the neighbor samples …, etc., considered equivalent to the limitation as claimed).
Regarding claim 2, Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the linear model parameter is derived based on at least one of a first reference sample included in a first reference sample line of the current block, a coordinate of the first reference sample, or a left or upper reference sample of the first reference sample (e.g., it is noted that, the claim is set in an alternatives form, and video decoding process as disclosed throughout the disclosure, including prediction according to linear model, covers one of the above alternatives).
Regarding claim 4, Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the neighboring region includes at least one of a left neighboring region, an upper neighboring region, an upper-left neighboring region, an upper-right neighboring region, or a lower-left neighboring region ( indication of, e.g., figs. 3,5, , prediction may be performed based on a neighboring sample that has already been encoded / decoded at the decoding time of the current block. That is, the prediction sample of the current block may be reconstructed using the left and right neighbor samples of the current block. The left peripheral samples and the upper peripheral samples may be expressed as shown in FIGs., considered equivalent to the above limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, further comprising:
Obtaining, from a bitstream, at least one of a first flag indicating whether a linear model-Based
prediction mode is available or a second flag indicating whether the linear model-based
prediction mode is applied to the current block (e.g., indication of, information indicating whether prediction using the linear model is performed on the current chroma block, in the disclosure of the reference covers one of the above alternatives).
Regarding claim 8, Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein a predetermined filter is applied to one or more reference samples within the neighboring region of the current block (e.g., filter units disclosed in the disclosure of the reference).
Regarding claim 10, Yoo discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the residual sample of the current block is derived by performing an inverse transform on a transform coefficient of the current block, and wherein the inverse transform is performed based on a transform kernel for a pre-defined non-directional mode or an intra prediction mode derived based on the neighboring region (e.g., implicit in the image coding as shown in figs. 1-2).
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, and has been addressed in the above claim 1, as for encoding and transmitting bitstream, please refer to the disclosure of the reference, also fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, Yoo discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method according to claim 11 (e.g., indication of, the bitstream may be transmitted over a network or stored in a digital storage medium, disclosed in the disclosure of Yoo).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (WO 2019/031703) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2022/0417497).
Regarding claim 3, Yoo throughout the disclosure teaches the image decoding method of claim 2, including deriving a prediction sample for a current block based on a reference sample, e.g., top-left or upper neighbor samples, etc.
Yoo is silent to explicitly indicate, at least one of the left or upper reference sample of the first reference sample is included in a second reference sample line of the current block.
Zhao in the same field of endeavor (e.g., paragraphs 0134,0136,0140,0148,0150-0151,0154,
etc.) teaches first reference line index indicates a non-adjacent reference line, e.g., equivalent to second reference sample line, and the first predictor is generated from a first sample at the non-adjacent reference line, considered equivalent to the above limitation.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Zhao, into the video/image coding system of Yoo, in order to improved design and signaling of prediction and multiple reference line selection scheme, as suggested by the reference.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (WO 2019/031703) in view of Teng et al. (US 2022/0329813).
Regarding claim 7, Yoo teaches the image decoding method of claim 6, further comprising; decodes information in a bitstream based on a coding method and obtaining linear model parameters for the current block, but fails to explicitly teach, obtaining, from the bitstream, an index specifying one of a plurality of pre-defined linear model-based prediction modes.
Teng, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., paragraphs 0071,0098,0128-0129) teaches the above index specifying one of a plurality of linear model-based prediction modes.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Teng, into the video
coding system of Yoo, in order to improve the coding efficiency.
10. Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (WO 2019/031703) in view of Lim et al. (WO 2019/107911).
Regarding claim 5, Yoo may not clearly teach, wherein the linear model parameter is derived as one of a plurality of linear model parameters, wherein the plurality of linear model parameters are derived for a plurality of sub-regions within the neighboring region, respectively, and wherein the plurality of sub-regions includes at least two of a left neighboring region, an upper neighboring region, an upper-left neighboring region, an upper-right neighboring region, or a lower-left neighboring region.
However, Yoo throughout the disclosure teaches the same concept of, image decoding method, and deriving linear model parameters of the current block on the basis of neighboring samples (e.g., fig. 3, abstract, entire disclosure) and indication of, deriving the linear model parameters of the current block on the basis of neighboring samples of the current block, e.g., chroma block and luma block, left
neighboring samples and the upper neighboring samples/Subsamples, thus considered equivalent to the above limitation). For further clarification, Lim also throughout the disclosure, teaches linear model that calculates the parameters using both neighboring template, e.g., sub-regions, the upper and the left templates.
It is believed that the above combination meets the fact of using sub-regions within the neighboring region, for example, temples or sub-blocks, to derive linear model parameters, and makes the above claimed limitation obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Yoo teaches the image decoding method of claim 8, including filtering, but is silent to explicitly indicate, wherein at least one of whether the predetermined filter is applied or a type
of the predetermined filter is determined based on a size of the current block.
Lim, throughout the disclosure teaches, The type of the filter is based on at least one of the characteristics of the image, the size of the block, the shape of the block, the intra prediction mode, etc., thus at least covers one of the above alternatives.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching.
Contact Information
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can
normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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,
Christopher Kelley can be reached on 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 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.
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights