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 Claims
Claims 1-9, 11-19 and 21 are pending. Claims 1, 7-8, 11 and 18-19 are currently amended. Claims 10 and 20 have been canceled. Claim 21 has been added.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of previously examined claims 8 and 10-15 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Yu et al. and Chen et al.. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The limitation “…wherein blending information of a blending region of the current video block for spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM) is different from a geometric partitioning mode based (GPM-based) mode, the GPM-based mode is different from the SGPM” is unclear. Firstly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “blending information” and “a blending region”. It is unclear how this limitation relates to the remaining limitations of the claims. For example, what is considered “a blending region” of the current video block and how does “blending information” of the “blending region” relate to the selected “target blending scheme for blending samples in a plurality of partitions associated with the current video block”. The limitation establishes that “blending information” of “a blending region” for SPGM is different, but is unclear on how this is involved with the selection of a target blending scheme and conversion between a current video block of a vide and a bitstream of video. Secondly, the “blending information” of the SGPM is compared to the GPM-based mode rather than comparing the blending information used for the SGPM to the blending information used for the GPM-based mode. As drafted, it is not clear what feature is being defined.
Claim 21 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.
The claim states “A method for storing a bitstream of video, comprising…”, however, there is no mention of how the bitstream is stored in the body of the claim. As drafted, it is not clear how the claim stores a bitstream. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Furthermore, the limitation “performing the conversion based on the target blending scheme” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The lack of clarity arises because the claim refers to "the conversion" where the claim contains no earlier recitation or limitation of a conversion. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20180103273 A1, hereinafter Guo) in view of Yu et al. (US 20260164024 A1, hereinafter Yu [claiming benefit to provisional application 63/380,943]).
Concerning claims 1, 18-19, and 21, Guo teaches a method for video processing, comprising:
selecting, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video (figs. 3 and 6-7: encoding unit 104, inter-prediction unit 304 & decoding unit 106, wherein the conversion includes one of encoding and decoding the current block), a target blending scheme from a plurality of candidate blending schemes for blending samples in a plurality of partitions associated with the current video block (fig. 11: transition zone 1200 includes blocks from partitions 1204 and 1206; ¶¶0127-0129: selecting one of various Overlapped-Block Motion Compensation (OBMC) smoothing operations and/or a smoothing filter); and
performing the conversion based on the target blending scheme (fig. 3: inter-prediction unit 304; ¶0070: inter-prediction unit 304, as part of encoding unit 104, makes a decision on performing a smoothing operation on the video data. The output of encoding unit 104 is an encoded bitstream). Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein blending information of a blending region of the current video block for spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM) is different from a geometric partitioning mode based (GPM-based) mode, the GPM-based mode is different from the SGPM.
Yu, in the same field of endeavor, teaches spatial geometric partitioning mode (SPGM) improvement for video coding, wherein blending information of a blending region of the current video block for spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM) is different from a geometric partitioning mode based (GPM-based) mode, the GPM-based mode is different from the SGPM (fig. 8 & ¶0045: the blending width of SGPM is different than the blending width of a GPM tool). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Guo and Yu in order to have a better prediction for those pixels which sit in a boundary PB between two prediction parts (Yu, ¶0045).
Concerning claim 2, Guo further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of partitions comprise partitions of the current video block (fig. 11: transition zone 1200 includes blocks from partitions 1204 and 1206).
Concerning claim 3, Guo further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein in a first candidate blending scheme among the plurality of candidate blending schemes, a value for a metric of a blending region of the current video block in a direction is determined based on coding information of the current video block, values for samples in the blending region being determined based on values for samples in the plurality of partitions, or
wherein in a second candidate blending scheme among the plurality of candidate blending schemes, a value for a metric of a blending region of the current video block in a direction is indicated in the bitstream, values for samples in the blending region being determined based on values for samples in the plurality of partitions, or
wherein in a third candidate blending scheme among the plurality of candidate blending schemes, a value for a metric of a blending region of the current video block in a direction is fixed, values for samples in the blending region being determined based on values for samples in the plurality of partitions, or
wherein in a fourth candidate blending scheme among the plurality of candidate blending schemes, a value for a metric of a blending region of the current video block in a direction is equal to zero, values for samples in the blending region being determined based on values for samples in the plurality of partitions, or
wherein in a fifth candidate blending scheme among the plurality of candidate blending schemes, samples in the current video block are from one of the plurality of partitions depending on a position of respective samples and a position of a splitting line (fig. 11: block 1202 is split into two partitions 1204/1206 by partitioning line 1208; ¶0118), or
wherein in a sixth candidate blending scheme among the plurality of candidate blending schemes, samples in the current video block are determined without a fusion process, or
wherein in a seventh candidate blending scheme among the plurality of candidate blending schemes, a blending process is applied on a part of samples in a blending region of the current video block (fig. 11: transition zone 1200; ¶0118; ¶0127-0129).
Concerning claim 4, Guo further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the target blending scheme is selected based on at least one syntax element (¶0171).
Concerning claim 5, Guo further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one syntax element is indicated in the bitstream (¶0073; ¶0171), or
wherein the at least one syntax element is a high-level syntax element, and the at least one syntax element is indicated at one of the following levels: a sequence parameter set (SPS) level, a video parameter set (VPS) level, a picture parameter set (PPS) level, a group of pictures level, a picture header, a picture level, a subpicture level, a slice header, a slice level, a group of tiles level, a tile level, or a brick level, or
wherein the at least one syntax element is a block-level syntax element, and the at least one syntax element is indicated at one of the following levels: a block level, a coding tree unit (CTU) level, a coding unit (CU) level, a transform unit (TU) level, a prediction unit (PU) level, or a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU) level, or
wherein if a first syntax element in the at least one syntax element is equal to a first value, one of the plurality of candidate blending schemes is selected to be the target blending scheme, or if the first syntax element in the at least one syntax element is equal to a second value different from the first value, a further one of the plurality of candidate blending schemes is selected to be the target blending scheme, or
wherein the at least one syntax element is predictively coded, or
wherein the at least one syntax element is coded with at least one context.
Concerning claim 6, Guo further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the target blending scheme is selected based on an implicit rule (figs. 12-18: Yes or No decision to apply the smoothing operation based on a rule), or
wherein the current video block is coded with a prediction mode in which at least one sample of the current video block is obtained by blending more than one sample (¶0187), or
wherein the current video block is coded with at least one of the following:
a spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM),
a GPM, a geometric merge mode (GEO),
a GPM inter-intra, a GPM template matching (TM),
a GPM merge mode with motion vector difference (MMVD),
a triangle prediction mode (TPM),
a wedge prediction mode,
a multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP),
a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP),
an overlap subblock based motion compensation (OBMC),
a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD),
a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD),
an intra luma fusion, or
an intra chroma fusion.
Concerning claim 11, Yu further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the blending information comprises at least one of the following:
candidate values for a metric of the blending region in a direction (¶0045: the blending width is adaptive and can have a plurality of different values), or
a maximum number of the candidate values for the metric.
Concerning claim 12, Yu further teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the maximum number of the candidate values for the metric for the SGPM or the GPM-based mode is indicated in the bitstream, or wherein the number of the candidate values for the metric for the SGPM or the GPM-based mode is determined based on coding information associated with the current video block (¶0045: “The blending width is adaptively determined depending on the block size”).
Concerning claim 13, Yu further teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the metric is a width between two sides of the blending region (¶0045).
Concerning claim 14, Yu teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining first information regarding at least one of the following based on coding information associated with the current video block:
storing of at least a part of intra mode information associated with the current video block (¶¶0052-0053), or
an intra mode used for a succeeding process after a prediction of the current video block (¶¶0052-0053),
wherein the conversion is performed based on the first information (¶¶0052-0053),
wherein the current video block is coded with a geometric partitioning mode and comprises a plurality of intra-coded partitions (¶¶0052-0053).
Concerning claim 15, Yu teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining information regarding applying a transform on the current video block coded with a spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM) (¶¶0077-0079), the information being dependent on at least one of the following:
a first intra mode associated with the current video block (¶¶0077-0079),
a partition index for the current video block (¶¶0077-0079), or
a predetermined intra mode (¶0078),
wherein the conversion is performed based on the information (¶¶0077-0079).
Concerning claim 16, Guo further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (figs. 3 and 6-7: encoding unit 104, inter-prediction unit 304 & decoding unit 106, wherein the conversion includes one of encoding and decoding the current block).
Concerning claim 17, Guo further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block into the bitstream (figs. 3 and 6-7: encoding unit 104, inter-prediction unit 304 & decoding unit 106, wherein the conversion includes one of encoding and decoding the current block).
Claim 7 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20180103273 A1) in view of in view of Yu et al. (US 20260164024 A1) and Reuze et al. (US 20210067776 A1).
Concerning claim 7, Guo in view of Yu teaches the method of claim 1. Guo further teaches including syntax elements in the bitstream at a syntax structure level (¶0073). Not explicitly taught is, wherein a syntax element indicating information regarding at least one of the following is comprised in the bitstream at a syntax structure level: whether to generate samples around a splitting line of a first video block of the video with a blending process, the first video block being different from the current video block, or how to generate samples around the splitting line with the blending process.
Reuze et al. (hereinafter Reuze), in the same field of endeavor, teaches processing techniques for a geometric partitioning mode, wherein syntax elements are used for indicating important information regarding coding decisions, partitioning of pictures in blocks and splitting information (¶0061; ¶0080; ¶0095). Given this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Reuze into the Guo in view of Yu invention and add a syntax element indicating in the bitstream at a syntax structure level: whether to generate samples around a splitting line of a first video block of the video with a blending process the first video block being different from the current video block, or how to generate samples around the splitting line with the blending process. This modification would allow communication of values for syntax elements and/or other data used to decode the encoded video data (Reuze, ¶0094).
Claim 8 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20180103273 A1) in view of in view of Yu et al. (US 20260164024 A1), further in view of Reuze et al. (US 20210067776 A1) and Chen et al. (US 20230345023 A1, hereinafter Chen).
Concerning claim 8, Guo in view of Yu and Reuze teach the method of claim 7. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein if a video type of the first video block is screen content coding (SCC) video, the blending process is disabled for the first video block, or wherein the first video block is coded with GPM or SGPM, or wherein samples in a blending region of the first video block are from one of a plurality of partitions of the first video block depending on a position of respective samples and a position of the splitting line.
Chen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches adaptive blending for GPM, wherein if a video type of the first video block is screen content coding (SCC) video, the blending process is disabled for the first video block (¶0137). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Guo in view of Yu and Reuze with Chen in order to adequately process the strong textures and sharp edges of screen coding video.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 20180103273 A1) in view of in view of in view of Yu et al. (US 20260164024 A1) and Zhao et al. (US 20240129474 A1 claiming benefit to application No. 63/416362).
Concerning claim 9, Guo in view of Yu teaches the method of claim 1. Guo further teaches including syntax elements in the bitstream at a syntax structure level (¶0073). Not explicitly taught is, wherein a syntax element is comprised in the bitstream at a syntax structure level, the syntax element indicating that samples around a splitting line of current video block is generated with a fixed value for a metric of a blending region of the current video block in a direction, or wherein information regarding at least one of the following is dependent on a color format or a color component of the current video block: whether to perform a blending scheme of geometric partitioning, or how to perform the blending scheme of geometric partitioning.
Zhao et al. (hereinafter Zhao), in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein a syntax element is comprised in the bitstream at a syntax structure level, the syntax element indicating that samples around a splitting line of current video block is generated with a fixed value for a metric of a blending region of the current video block in a direction, or
wherein information regarding at least one of the following is dependent on a color format or a color component of the current video block:
whether to perform a blending scheme of geometric partitioning (¶0122: determining whether to perform the same geometric partition), or
how to perform the blending scheme of geometric partitioning (¶0122: performing the same geometric partition or an adjusted different geometric partition). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Zhao into the Guo in view of Yu invention in order to determine blending strength along the partition boundary of a color component (Zhao, ¶0121).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of the remarks, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the objection to the Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. In light of the newly filed Abstract, the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of the remarks, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 7-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. In light of the claim amendments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of the remarks, filed 07/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 16-19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights