DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, claim limitation “wherein the non-polynomial metric comprises” is unclear because the antecedent basis of the limitation the non-polynomial metric occurs in an optional limitation, making a definite reference to the limitation unclear in meaning because it might refer to a prior limitation option that was not selected. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 3, claim limitation “the position neighboring to the current video block comprises” is unclear because the antecedent basis of the limitation the position neighboring to the current video block occurs in an optional limitation, making a definite reference to the limitation unclear in meaning because it might refer to a prior limitation option that was not selected. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 8, claim limitations the at least one parameter, the at least one reference sample, the at least one reconstructed sample value is unclear because the antecedent basis of the limitations the at least one parameter, the at least one reference sample, the at least one reconstructed sample value occurs in optional limitations, making a definite reference to the limitations unclear in meaning because they might refer to a prior limitation option that was not selected. (Claim 8, because of the final and/or instance, is written in a way where each wherein clause may be interpreted as a single optional limitation to be selected out of multiple wherein clauses). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims dependent on claim 8 that contain these same limitations are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 10, claim limitations the at least one syntax element comprises, the first syntax element is included, the second syntax element is included is unclear because the antecedent basis of the limitations the at least one syntax element, the first syntax element, and the second syntax element occurs in optional limitations, making a definite reference to the limitations unclear in meaning because they might refer to a prior limitation option that was not selected. (Claim 10, because of the final and/or instance, is written in a way where each wherein clause may be interpreted as a single optional limitation to be selected out of the four clauses). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims dependent on claim 10 that contain these same limitations are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 11, claim limitations including instances of wherein the region comprises is unclear because the antecedent basis of the limitation the region occurs in an optional limitation, making a definite reference to the limitation unclear in meaning because it might refer to a prior limitation option that was not selected. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 13, claim limitations including instances of the information regarding applying of the method is based is unclear because the antecedent basis of the limitation the information regarding applying of the method occurs in an optional limitation, making a definite reference to the limitation unclear in meaning because it might refer to a prior limitation option that was not selected. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 14, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation(s) "a third syntax element,” which comes without a pre-established first or second syntax element in this claim or any preceding claims on which this claim is dependent. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 8 and 10, because they do not contain additional language that would overcome the indefiniteness issue recited with regard to those claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20220312003) (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 20, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a bitstream generated by a method. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is not implementing any method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a method. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by an method).
Applicant 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 with video content) 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, this claim is directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by the recited method) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, 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, this claim is anticipated by Lee, as Lee paragraph 1 and 627 discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream.
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 taught 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 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) 1-4 and 7-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20220312003) (hereinafter Lee) in view of Skupin et al. (US 20240340455) (hereinafter Skupin).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches A method for video processing, comprising:
performing the conversion based on the intra prediction (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach a metric as needed for the limitations of claim 1.
Skupin, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a metric for intra prediction of the current video block; determining an intra prediction of a sample at a first position in the current video block based on the metric and the first position (see Skupin paragraph 28 regarding metric for intra prediction of current video block that determines an intra prediction of a sample based on positional metric that is a linear metric that determines value based on position- in combination with Lee, the position based linear metric may be incorporated into the intra prediction conversion scheme of Lee in order to improve coding efficiency); and
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teaching of Lee to include the teaching of Skupin so that in combination with Lee, the position based linear metric may be incorporated into the intra prediction conversion scheme of Lee in order to improve coding efficiency.
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to improve coding efficiency (see Skupin paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein the metric comprises a surface metric, the surface metric comprising at least one of: a linear metric, a quadratic metric, a polynomial metric, or a non-polynomial metric, wherein the non-polynomial metric comprises at least one of: a trigonometric metric, an inverse trigonometric metric, a hyperbolic trigonometric metric, an inverse hyperbolic trigonometric metric, an exponential metric, a logarithmic metric, or a combination of a non-polynomial metric and a polynomial metric, and/or wherein the metric comprises one of: ax+by+c, ax2+by2+cxy+dx+ey+f, or ∑i=0MaixiyM-i+b, whereinx,y denotes a coordinate of a sample in the current video block, a, b, c, d, e, f and M are parameters of the metric (see Skupin paragraph 28 regarding metric for intra prediction of current video block that determines an intra prediction of a sample based on positional metric that is a linear metric that determines value based on position- in combination with Lee, the position based linear metric may be incorporated into the intra prediction conversion scheme of Lee in order to improve coding efficiency).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to improve coding efficiency (see Skupin paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein the first position of the sample is a relative position relative to a second position, and the second position comprises one of: a top-left corner position of the current video block, a top-right corner position of the current video block, a bottom-left corner position of the current video block, a bottom-right corner position of the current video block, a center position of the current video block, or a position neighboring to the current video block, wherein the position neighboring to the current video block comprises an above-left position neighboring to the current video block (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein determining the intra prediction of the sample at the first position comprises: determining a value of the metric based on the first position (see Skupin paragraph 28 regarding metric for intra prediction of current video block that determines an intra prediction of a sample based on positional metric that is a linear metric that determines value based on position- in combination with Lee, the position based linear metric may be incorporated into the intra prediction conversion scheme of Lee in order to improve coding efficiency); and
determining the intra prediction of the sample at the first position by applying, to the value, at least one of: an integer operation, a shifting operation, or a clipping operation (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
One would be motivated to combine these teachings in order to improve coding efficiency (see Skupin paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein at least one parameter of the metric comprises at least one predefined value (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein determining the metric comprises: determining at least one parameter of the metric based on at least one reference sample of the current video block, wherein the at least one parameter is determined based on the at least one reference sample by using at least one of: a least mean square (LMS), a regression based mean square error (MSE) minimization, or a linear regression, wherein the at least one reference sample comprises at least one neighboring reconstructed sample of the current video block, and determining the at least one parameter of the metric comprises: determining at least one reconstructed sample value based on at least one coordinate of the at least one neighboring reconstructed sample ; and determining the at least one parameter based on at least one difference between the at least one reconstructed sample value and at least one predicted sample value determined from the metric, and/or wherein the at least one parameter of the metric is determined by using a parameter derivation tool used for a coding tool, wherein the coding tool comprises a convolutional cross-component model (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein the at least one reference sample comprises at least one of: a first neighboring sample adjacent to the current video block, or a second neighboring sample non-adjacent to the current video block, or wherein the at least one reference sample comprises at least one of: at least one reconstructed row of samples above the current video block, or at least one reconstructed column of samples left to the current video block, or wherein the at least one reference sample of the current video block is determined based on at least one of: whether a reference sample is available, whether a reference sample is reconstructed, a dimension of the current video block, or a position of the current video block (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein information regarding applying of the method is included in at least one syntax element in the bitstream, wherein the at least one syntax element comprises at least one of: a first syntax element indicating whether to apply the method, or a second syntax element indicating how to apply the method, wherein if the current video block is intra coded, the first syntax element is included in the bitstream, and/or wherein if the method is applied to the current video block, the second syntax element is included in the bitstream (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein the at least one syntax element is included in at least one of: a sequence parameter set (SPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a sequence header, a picture header, a slice header, a coding tree unit (CTU), a coding unit (CU), a transform unit (TU), or a prediction unit (PU), or wherein the at least one syntax element is included in at least one of: a sequence level, a group of pictures level, a picture level, a slice level, a tile group level, a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a decoded parameter set (DPS), decoding capability information (DCI), a picture parameter set (PPS), an adaptation parameter set (APS), a slice header, or a tile group header, or wherein the at least one syntax element is included in a region containing more than one sample or pixel, wherein the region comprises one of: a prediction block (PB), a transform block (TB), a coding block (CB), a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a coding unit (CU), a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, a slice, a tile, or a subpicture (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein the at least one syntax element is predictively coded, or wherein the at least one syntax element is coded with at least one arithmetic context model, the at least one arithmetic context model being based on at least one neighboring block of the current video block, or wherein the at least one syntax element is bypass coded, or wherein the at least one syntax element is coded in a hierarchical way (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein the information regarding applying of the method is based on coded information of the current video block, wherein the coded information comprises at least one of: a block size, a colour format, a single or dual tree partitioning, a colour component, a slice type, or a picture type, and/or wherein the information is based on whether at least one of a width of the current video block or a height of the current video block meets at least one condition, wherein the at least one condition comprises at least one of: the width of the current video block is less than a first threshold, the width of the current video block is less than or equal to the first threshold, the width of the current video block is greater than a second threshold, the width of the current video block is greater than or equal to the second threshold, the height of the current video block is less than a third threshold, the height of the current video block is less than or equal to the third threshold, the height of the current video block is greater than a fourth threshold, the height of the current video block is greater than or equal to the fourth threshold, a first ratio of the width to the height is less than a fifth threshold, the first ratio is less than or equal to the fifth threshold, the first ratio is greater than a sixth threshold, the first ratio is greater than or equal to the sixth threshold, a second ratio of the height to the width is less than a seventh threshold, the second ratio is less than or equal to the seventh threshold, the second ratio is greater than an eighth threshold, the second ratio is greater than or equal to the eighth threshold, the width is equal to a first value, or the height is equal to a second value, wherein: the first threshold comprises one of: 8, 16, 32 or 64, the second threshold comprises one of: 2, 4 or 8, the third threshold comprises one of: 8, 16, 32 or 64, the fourth threshold comprises one of: 2, 4 or 8, the fifth threshold comprises one of: 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16, the sixth threshold comprises one of: 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16, the seventh threshold comprises one of: 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16, the eighth threshold comprises one of: 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1, 2, 4, 8 or 16, the first value comprises one of: 8, 16, 32 or 64, and/or the second value comprises one of: 8, 16, 32 or 64 (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein at least one parameter of the metric is included in a third syntax element in the bitstream, wherein if the metric is applied for determining an intra prediction of the current video block, the third syntax element is included in the bitstream, wherein the third syntax element is coded with at least one arithmetic context model, or wherein the third syntax element is bypass coded, or wherein the third syntax element is predictively coded (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein the method is performed as an intra prediction mode, the intra prediction mode being predicted coded, and/or wherein if a syntax element of a first level associated with the intra prediction mode is to be disabled, a syntax element of a second level being lower than the first level associated with the intra prediction mode is not included in the bitstream (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches all aforementioned limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed.
Furthermore, the combination of Lee and Skupin teaches wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (see Lee paragraphs 1, 69-70, 77, 207-209, 494-518 regarding encoding/decoding conversion based on intra prediction, neighboring upper left reference samples used for a position based intra prediction scheme that applies a clipping operation, where the intra prediction includes a linear metric determined based on the position of a sample and the metric includes predefined coefficients for the function, information regarding the coding methods and parameters is signaled in syntax in the bitstream including at a slice or sequence header level, the syntax is predictively coded, information regarding applying the method is based on coded information of the current video block, making it obvious that parameters of the linear metric may be included in multiple syntax elements in the bitstream, and the method is performed as an intra prediction mode).
Independent claim(s) 18-20 is/are analogous in scope to claim(s) 1, albeit regarding a processor, non-transitory memory/medium, instructions and/or a bitstream as taught by Lee paragraphs 1 and 627, and is/are rejected according to the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 5 contains the limitations regarding the intra prediction of the sample in a position being determined by using RightShift(f(x,y),s), wherein (x,y) denotes a coordinate of the first position, f() denotes the metric, f(x,y) denotes the value of the metric, s denotes a predefined integer, RightShift(f(x,y),s) denotes the shifting operation, and wherein the shifting operation RightShift(f(x,y),s) is defined as: RightShift(f(x,y),s) = (f(x,y)+offsset0)>>s,if f(x,y)≥0 // -((-f(x,y)+offset1)>>s),if f(x,y)<0, wherein offsset0 and offset1 are predefined values. Claim 6 contains the limitations regarding the intra prediction of the sample at a position is determined by using Clip3(RightShift(f(x,y),s)), whereinx,y denotes a coordinate of the first position, f() denotes the metric, fx,y denotes the value of the metric, s denotes a predefined integer, RightShift(f(x,y),s) denotes the shifting operation, Clip3(RightShift(f(x,y),s)) denotes the clipping operation, wherein the shifting operation RightShift(f(x,y),s) is defined as: RightShift(f(x,y),s) = (f(x,y)+offsset0)>>s,if f(x,y)≥0 // -((-f(x,y)+offset1)>>s),if f(x,y)<0, wherein offsset0 and offset1 are predefined values, wherein offsset0 and offset1 are predefined values, and wherein the clipping operation Clip3(z) is defined as: Clip3(z) = max(minV, min(maxV, z)), wherein minV and maxV denote minimum and maximum values of a sample of the current video block, z denotes a value determined by the shifting operation RightShift(f(x,y),s). At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
The closest prior art, Lee et al. (US 20220312003), Skupin et al. (US 20240340455), Koo et al. (US 20220264103), Kim et al. (US 20220301310), Harrer et al. (US 20180296107), Wang et al. (US 20240137529), Zheng et al. (US 20190166371), Venkataramani et al. (US 20240104718), Zhang et al. (US 20180160134), Egilmez et al. (US 20180288411), Blanch et al. (US 20230062509), Misra et al. (US 20190387253), Xu et al. (US 20250063156) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. While the prior art contains teachings regarding clipping and shifting operations, the prior art does not teach he intra prediction of the sample in the first position being determined by using RightShift(f(x,y),s), wherein (x,y) denotes a coordinate of the first position, f() denotes the metric, f(x,y) denotes the value of the metric, s denotes a predefined integer, RightShift(f(x,y),s) denotes the shifting operation, and wherein the shifting operation RightShift(f(x,y),s) is defined as: RightShift(f(x,y),s) = (f(x,y)+offsset0)>>s,if f(x,y)≥0 // -((-f(x,y)+offset1)>>s),if f(x,y)<0, wherein offsset0 and offset1 are predefined values, or the intra prediction of the sample at the first position is determined by using Clip3(RightShift(f(x,y),s)), whereinx,y denotes a coordinate of the first position, f() denotes the metric, fx,y denotes the value of the metric, s denotes a predefined integer, RightShift(f(x,y),s) denotes the shifting operation, Clip3(RightShift(f(x,y),s)) denotes the clipping operation, wherein the shifting operation RightShift(f(x,y),s) is defined as: RightShift(f(x,y),s) = (f(x,y)+offsset0)>>s,if f(x,y)≥0 // -((-f(x,y)+offset1)>>s),if f(x,y)<0, wherein offsset0 and offset1 are predefined values, wherein offsset0 and offset1 are predefined values, and wherein the clipping operation Clip3(z) is defined as: Clip3(z) = max(minV, min(maxV, z)), wherein minV and maxV denote minimum and maximum values of a sample of the current video block, z denotes a value determined by the shifting operation RightShift(f(x,y),s). Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights