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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al. (US 20220239937 A1) in view of Li et al. (Xiang Li, Guichun Li, Xiaozhong Xu, Shan Liu, " Non-CE4: On prediction refinement with optical flow ", Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, JVET-O0281-v2, 15th Meeting: Gothenburg, SE, July 3-12, 2019).
Regarding claim 1,
PARK teaches for video encoding (an image encoding/decoding method and apparatus and a method of transmitting a bitstream, and, more particularly, to an image encoding/decoding method and apparatus for performing weighted prediction in consideration of prediction refinement with optical flow “PROF” [0002]), comprising:
obtaining, by an encoder, a first reference picture and a second reference picture associated with a video block that is coded by affine mode within the video signal (Parameters of an affine motion model may be used to derive a motion vector of each pixel in a CU [0279]);
obtaining, by the encoder, first and second horizontal and vertical gradient values based on first prediction samples and second prediction samples associated with the first reference picture and the second reference picture (Spatial gradients gx(i, j) and gy(i, j) of the predicted sub-block is calculated at each sample position. In this case, a 3-tap filter may be used, and filter coefficient may be [−1, 0, 1]. For example, the spatial gradients may be calculated as follows:
gx(i,j)=I(i+1,j)−I(i−1,j)
gy(i,j)=I(i,j+1)−I(i,j−1) [0283]; [0264] -[0266])
obtaining, by the encoder, first and second horizontal and vertical motion refinements based on control point motion vectors “CPMVs” associated with the first reference picture and the second reference picture (In the above, “v0x, v0y”, “v1x, v1y” and “v2x, v2y” respectively correspond to a top-left CPMV, a top-right CPMV and a bottom-left CPMV, and w and h respectively denote the width and height of the CU [0290] ; Eq. 6 [0270]);
obtaining, by the encoder, first and second prediction refinements based on the first and second horizontal and vertical gradient values and the first and second horizontal and vertical motion refinements (Eq. 7 [0271]);
obtaining, by the encoder, first and second refined samples based on the first prediction samples, the second prediction samples, and the first and second prediction refinements (Eq. 8 [0272]);
and obtaining, by the encoder, final prediction samples of the video block based on the first and second refined samples and prediction parameters (Finally, a final prediction block I′(i, j) may be generated based on the calculated luma prediction refinement ΔI(i, j) and the predicted sub-block I(i, j). For example, a final prediction block I′ may be generated as follows.
I′(i,j)=I(i,j)+ΔI(i,j) [0291]; PROF may be performed on a block encoded in an affine mode, as a method similar to BDOF [0293]; Figs. 20-22); wherein the prediction parameters comprise parameters for weighted prediction “WP” or parameters for bi-prediction with coding unit “CU”-level weight “BCW” (Fig. 24 is a flowchart illustrating another example of performing PROF, BCW, WP and/or average sum according to the present disclosure [0320]).
obtaining, by the encoder, the first and second prediction refinements based on the first and second horizontal and vertical gradient values and first and second horizontal and vertical motion refinements ([0285]-[0286]).
PARK did not explicitly teach clipping, by the encoder, the first and second prediction refinements based on a prediction refinement threshold, wherein the prediction refinement threshold is equal to a max value of either a coding bit-depth plus one or 13, wherein obtaining, by the encoder, the first and second refined samples comprises: obtaining, by the encoder, the first and second refined samples respectively based on the first prediction samples, the second prediction samples, and the clipped first and second prediction refinements.
Li teaches clipping, by the encoder, the first and second prediction refinements based on a prediction refinement threshold, wherein the prediction refinement threshold is equal to a max value of either a coding bit-depth plus one or 13 (Luma prediction refinement is calculated by the optical flow equation, Introduction; Variables bitDepth and shift1 are derived as follows: The variable bitDepth is set equal to BitDepthY. The variable shift1 is set to equal to Max( 6, bitDepth − 6 ). The variable dILimit is set equal to 1 << (BitDepthY – 1), Section 8.5.6.7 Prediction refinement with optical flow process: it is obvious to select various clipping ranges, for example 13 as in Step 3 “Introduction”); wherein obtaining, by the encoder, the first and second refined samples comprises: obtaining, by the encoder, the first and second refined samples respectively based on the first prediction samples, the second prediction samples, and the clipped first and second prediction refinements (pbSamples[ x ][ y ] = predSamples[ x + 1 ][ y + 1 ] + Clip3( -dILimit, dILimit - 1, ( dI + 1 ) >> 1 ) ); Section 8.5.6.7 Prediction refinement with optical flow process).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Li to the teachings of PARK. The motivation for such an addition would be to improve PROF (Li, section 4 Conclusion).
Regarding claim 2, is rejected under PARK in view of Li for the same reasoning as claim 1, where PARK teaches right shift ([0268] [0272]), and it is obvious apply these left and right shifts to be determined to be a fixed value (PARK [0268]); Li (Section 8.5.6.7 Prediction refinement with optical flow process).
Regarding claim 3,
PARK in view of Li teaches disabling, at the encoder, the WP and BCW in response to determining that the PROF is applied to one affine CU (Park, In general, a BCW weight index "bcw_idx" is signaled only when WP is not available. Accordingly, bcw_idx and weight factors of WP are not simultaneously signaled [0306]; Figs. 23-24).
Regarding claims 4-8,
Claims 4-8 CRM and processors are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 1-3 encoding method, PARK in view of Li, as shown above, where PARK further teaches an image encoding/decoding method and apparatus for performing weighted prediction in consideration of prediction refinement with optical flow "PROF" [0002].
Further regarding claims 7-8,
The only portion of the language in claims 7-8 that is given patentable weight is the preamble limitation of claim 7, because this is an article of manufacture. All of the other limitations of claims 7-8 body are not given patentable weight. This is because there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and any related computer.
According to MPEP 2111.05, “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated.” Furthermore, for machine-readable media, “When determining the scope of a claim directed to a computer-readable medium containing certain programming, the examiner should first look to the relationship between the programming and the intended computer system. Where the programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship will be found. For instance, a claim to computer-readable medium programmed with attribute data objects that perform the function of facilitating retrieval, addition, and removal of information in the intended computer system, establishes a functional relationship such that the claimed attribute data objects are given patentable weight. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. However, where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. For example, a claim to a memory stick containing tables of batting averages, or tracks of recorded music, utilizes the intended computer system merely as a support for the information. Such claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.”
The body limitations in claims 7-8 perform no function with respect to a computer with which it is associated. In other words, the body limitations in claims 7-8 do not perform a function or cause the associated computer to perform a function. An encoding, obtaining and applying method has already taken place. The bitstream does not perform an encoding, obtaining and applying method. The data stream also does not cause an associated computer to perform an encoding, obtaining and applying method.
Furthermore, the limitations in claims 7-8 convey a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system. The message is a bitstream that is to be seen by a human reader after decoding. The bitstream in claims 7-8 merely serves as a support for information and data. Additionally, any computer-readable medium that stores such a bitstream is merely a support for data.
While the body of claims 7-8 is not given patentable weight, the claim limitations are rejected using prior art in order to compact prosecution. In order for the body of claim 7-8 to be given patentable weight, Examiner suggest amending the claim to recite function, such as the function in claims 1-6.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,335,512 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-8 of the instant application are broader than, and therefore taught by, claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,335,512 .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M PONTIUS whose telephone number is (571)270-7687. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4.
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, Sath V Perungavoor can be reached on (571)272-7455. 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 PONTIUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights