DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 2, 14, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 13, 25, and 26 of copending Application No. 18/519,859 in view of XIE (Hereafter, “Xie”) [US 2026/0032240 A1]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they cover mutually associated subject matter. Thus, a terminal disclaimer is required. An analysis of the claims can be seen in Table 1 below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Table 1: Instant Application No. 19/205,928 vs. Co-Pending Application No. 18/519,859
Instant Application No. 19/20,928 Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
Co-pending Application No. 18/519,859 (Allowed) Claims (Difference Emphasis Added)
1. A method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block; obtaining a prediction sample for the current block; obtaining a scaling factor for the current block; deriving an offset value for the current block, wherein: when a block size of the current block is less than a threshold, the offset value is derived based on a set of neighboring samples for the current block; when the block size of the current block is greater than the threshold, the offset value is derived based on only a subset of the set of neighboring samples; adjusting the prediction sample using a linear equation with the scaling factor and the offset value; and reconstructing the current block using the adjusted prediction sample.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein, when the block size of the current block is equal to the threshold, the offset value is derived based on the set of neighboring samples for the current block.
1. A method for decoding a current block of a current frame in a coded video bitstream, the method comprising: receiving, by a device comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor in communication with the memory, the coded video bitstream; identifying, by the device from the coded video bitstream, a motion vector corresponding to a reference block associated with the current block of the current frame; obtaining, by the device, a scaling factor based on a first syntax explicitly signaled in the coded video bitstream; determining, by the device, a template used to derive an offset value by: obtaining a second syntax explicitly signaled in the coded video bitstream for indicating the template used to derive the offset value to comprise at least one of above samples, above-right samples, left samples, bottom-left samples, above region, or left region, and determining, based on the second syntax, the template used to derive the offset value; deriving, by the device, the offset value based on the template; generating, by the device, a predicted block based on the reference block according to a linear equation, the linear equation being associated with the scaling factor and the offset value; and reconstructing, by the device, the current block based on the predicted block, wherein the second syntax is entropy coded according to a context based on at least one of the following: a block shape of the current block, a block aspect ratio of the current block, a block size of the current block, or a location of the current block within a current tile, a slice, a subpicture, or a picture.
11. The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the template used to derive the offset value further comprises: determining a subset of samples in the above and left samples of the current block as the template used to derive the offset value.
13. The method according to claim 11, wherein the determining the subset of samples in the above and left samples of the current block as the template used to derive the offset value comprises: in response to a block width of the current block is greater than a block height of the current block, determining only the above samples of the current block as the template used to derive the offset value; in response to a block height of the current block is greater than a block width of the current block, determining only the left samples of the current block as the template used to derive the offset value; or in response to a block height of the current block is equal to a block width of the current block, determining both the above samples and the left samples of the current block as the template used to derive the offset value.
Claim 14 is the same as claim 1 in encoding form.
Claim 25 is the same as claim 1 but in encoding apparatus form.
Claim 18 is the same as claim 1 but in non-transitory computer readable form.
Claim 26 is the same as claim 1 but non-transitory computer readable form.
Some of the differences in the claim limitations in the co-pending application are narrower than the instant application, and thus it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the co-pending application.
The co-pending application fails to explicitly disclose obtaining a prediction sample for the current block; obtaining a scaling factor for the current block; deriving an offset value for the current block, wherein: when a block size of the current block is less than a threshold, the offset value is derived based on a set of neighboring samples for the current block; when the block size of the current block is greater than the threshold, the offset value is derived based on only a subset of the set of neighboring samples.
However, Xie discloses obtaining a prediction sample for the current block ([0107 and formula (1)] Pred(x, y) is a prediction block before illumination compensation [0094] the prediction unit 320 performs intra prediction or inter prediction on the current block to generate a prediction block of the current block based on the prediction information); obtaining a scaling factor for the current block ([0114] The illumination compensation model in the ECM is a linear model, and model parameters include the scaling factor a and the offset parameter b, which are obtained by the least square error. [0115] The model parameters are calculated after the top and left reconstructed samples are obtained.); deriving an offset value for the current block ([0114] The illumination compensation model in the ECM is a linear model, and model parameters include the scaling factor a and the offset parameter b, which are obtained by the least square error. [0115] The model parameters are calculated after the top and left reconstructed samples are obtained.), wherein: when a block size of the current block is less than a threshold, the offset value is derived based on a set of neighboring samples for the current block; when the block size of the current block is greater than the threshold, the offset value is derived based on only a subset of the set of neighboring samples ([0114] The number of reconstructed samples is selected based on a width and height of the current coding unit. In a case where the width or height of the current coding unit is equal to 4, 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the top reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit, and 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the left reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit. For example, if the width of the current coding unit is 16 and the height of the current coding unit is 4, all the 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the left reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit, and 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the top reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit with a step size of 3. In a case where the width and height of the current coding unit are not equal to 4, samples with the number of the logarithm of the relatively small side length to the base 2 are obtained from the top adjacent reconstructed samples and the left adjacent reconstructed samples.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention with the teachings of Xie in order to increase flexibility within the linear model and improve prediction [See Xie].
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 1-17 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.
Claim limitations “of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising” [Claim 1] and “of video encoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising” [Claim 14] have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because preambles are ordinarily not afforded patentable weight or typically recite Intended use which ordinarily receives no patentable weight, but the "method of" raises Indefinite metes and bounds of a method claim with structure creating and Indefinite conclusion if the structures are performing the method as in an apparatus claim or if a method is being Functionally Analyzed or not. Due to the Indefinite conclusion of interpretation of the claim, the claims have Indefinite metes and bounds. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Regarding claims 2-13 and 15-17, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by XIE (Hereafter, “Xie”) [US 2026/0032240 A1].
In regards to claim 18, the claim limitations and the recitation of, "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a video bitstream that is generated by a video encoding method..." is a non-functional descriptive material, wherein no functional relationship exists between the storage medium and data. "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". MPEP §2111.05(i)(A). When a claimed "computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the video bitstream in claim 18 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. Therefore, the structure data is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing a video bitstream and is anticipated by Xie which recites a storage medium storing data ([0055] The encoded video data may also be stored in a storage medium or a storage server for subsequent reading by the decoding device 120.).
In regards to claims 19 and 20, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7, 12, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIE (Hereafter, “Xie”) [US 2026/0032240 A1].
In regards to claim 1, Xie discloses a method of video decoding ([0006] a video decoding method, applied to a decoder) performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors ([0016] In a fifth aspect, a video decoder is provided, including a processor and a memory.), the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block ([0045] As shown in FIG. 1, the video encoding and decoding system 100 includes an encoding device 110 and a decoding device 120. The encoding device is used to encode (which may be understood as “compress”) video data to generate a bitstream, and transmit the bitstream to the decoding device. The decoding device decodes the bitstream generated by the encoding device to obtain decoded video data. [0094] At a decoding end, the entropy decoding unit 310 can parse the bitstream to obtain prediction information, quantization coefficient matrix, etc. of the current block.); obtaining a prediction sample for the current block ([0107 and formula (1)] Pred(x, y) is a prediction block before illumination compensation [0094] the prediction unit 320 performs intra prediction or inter prediction on the current block to generate a prediction block of the current block based on the prediction information); obtaining a scaling factor for the current block ([0114] The illumination compensation model in the ECM is a linear model, and model parameters include the scaling factor a and the offset parameter b, which are obtained by the least square error. [0115] The model parameters are calculated after the top and left reconstructed samples are obtained.); deriving an offset value for the current block ([0114] The illumination compensation model in the ECM is a linear model, and model parameters include the scaling factor a and the offset parameter b, which are obtained by the least square error. [0115] The model parameters are calculated after the top and left reconstructed samples are obtained.), wherein: when a block size of the current block is less than a threshold, the offset value is derived based on a set of neighboring samples for the current block; when the block size of the current block is greater than the threshold, the offset value is derived based on only a subset of the set of neighboring samples ([0114] The number of reconstructed samples is selected based on a width and height of the current coding unit. In a case where the width or height of the current coding unit is equal to 4, 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the top reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit, and 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the left reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit. For example, if the width of the current coding unit is 16 and the height of the current coding unit is 4, all the 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the left reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit, and 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the top reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit with a step size of 3. In a case where the width and height of the current coding unit are not equal to 4, samples with the number of the logarithm of the relatively small side length to the base 2 are obtained from the top adjacent reconstructed samples and the left adjacent reconstructed samples.); adjusting the prediction sample using a linear equation with the scaling factor and the offset value ([0107] For example, the change relationship is represented by the model parameters, which is shown in formula (1):
P
r
e
d
'
x
,
y
=
a
∙
P
r
e
d
x
,
y
+
b
(1) where Pred(x, y) is a prediction block before illumination compensation, Pred′(x, y) is a prediction block after illumination compensation, a is the scaling parameter in the illumination compensation model, and b is the offset parameter in the illumination compensation model. [0111] As shown in FIG. 5, in the digital video encoding and decoding process, the coding block of the current picture is corrected for illumination difference through the illumination compensation model to obtain a compensated prediction block.); and reconstructing the current block using the adjusted prediction sample ([0090] The reconstruction unit 340 uses the residual block associated with the TU of the CU and the prediction block of the PU of the CU to reconstruct a sample block of the CU. For example, the reconstruction unit 340 may add samples of the residual block to corresponding samples of the prediction block to reconstruct the sample block of the CU to obtain a reconstructed block.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the different embodiments/methods/examples of Xie in order to include the additional features for the method/system [Official Notice].
In regards to claim 2, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Xie discloses wherein, when the block size of the current block is equal to the threshold, the offset value is derived based on the set of neighboring samples for the current block ([0114] The number of reconstructed samples is selected based on a width and height of the current coding unit. In a case where the width or height of the current coding unit is equal to 4, 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the top reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit, and 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the left reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit.).
In regards to claim 4, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Xie discloses wherein the block size of the current block is a block height, a block width, a block area, or a block perimeter ([0114] The number of reconstructed samples is selected based on a width and height of the current coding unit. [0275] Manner 1: the number of first samples to be selected and the number of second samples to be selected are set according to a width and a height of the current block.).
In regards to claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Xie discloses wherein the block size of the current block is a maximum of block height of the current block and block width of the current block ([0392] For example, a width and height of the current block may be used to measure the size of the current block. For example, in a case where the width of the current block is greater than threshold 1 and the height of the current block is greater than threshold 2, it is determined that the size of the current block meets the first preset size. A value of threshold 1 may be 4, 8, 16, 32, 128, 256, etc. A value of threshold 2 may be 4, 8, 16, 32, 128, 256, etc. Threshold 1 may be equal to threshold 2.).
In regards to claim 6, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Xie discloses wherein the threshold is equal to 16, 32, or 64 pixels ([0392] For example, a width and height of the current block may be used to measure the size of the current block. For example, in a case where the width of the current block is greater than threshold 1 and the height of the current block is greater than threshold 2, it is determined that the size of the current block meets the first preset size. A value of threshold 1 may be 4, 8, 16, 32, 128, 256, etc. A value of threshold 2 may be 4, 8, 16, 32, 128, 256, etc. Threshold 1 may be equal to threshold 2.).
In regards to claim 7, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Xie discloses wherein the subset of the set of neighboring samples comprises top and left reference samples for the current block ([0279] For example, the top template includes one sample row (i.e., pixel row), and the left template includes one sample column (i.e., pixel column).).
In regards to claim 12, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Xie discloses wherein obtaining the scaling factor ([0114] The illumination compensation model in the ECM is a linear model, and model parameters include the scaling factor a and the offset parameter b, which are obtained by the least square error. [0115] The model parameters are calculated after the top and left reconstructed samples are obtained.) comprises: when the block size of the current block is less than the threshold, deriving the scaling factor based on the set of neighboring samples for the current block; and when the block size of the current block is greater than the threshold, deriving the scaling factor based on only the subset of the set of neighboring samples ([0114] The number of reconstructed samples is selected based on a width and height of the current coding unit. In a case where the width or height of the current coding unit is equal to 4, 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the top reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit, and 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the left reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit. For example, if the width of the current coding unit is 16 and the height of the current coding unit is 4, all the 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the left reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit, and 4 reconstructed samples are taken from the top reconstructed samples adjacent to the coding unit with a step size of 3. In a case where the width and height of the current coding unit are not equal to 4, samples with the number of the logarithm of the relatively small side length to the base 2 are obtained from the top adjacent reconstructed samples and the left adjacent reconstructed samples.).
Claim 14 lists all the same elements of claim 1, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 14.
In regards to claim 16, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed. Xie discloses further comprising signaling the encoded current block in a video bitstream ([0045] As shown in FIG. 1, the video encoding and decoding system 100 includes an encoding device 110 and a decoding device 120. The encoding device is used to encode (which may be understood as “compress”) video data to generate a bitstream, and transmit the bitstream to the decoding device.).
Claim 17 lists all the same elements of claim 6, but in encoding form rather than decoding form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 17.
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of CHUBACH et al. (Hereafter, “Chubach”) [US 2024/0414366 A1].
In regards to claim 11, the limitations of claim 1 have been addressed. Xie fails to explicitly disclose wherein the scaling factor is obtained by parsing an indicator in the video bitstream.
Chubach discloses wherein the scaling factor is obtained by parsing an indicator in the video bitstream ([0036] In some embodiments, for each block or CU that is coded by using LIC mode, the encoder specifies the scaling and offset parameters. The specified LIC scale and offset parameters are sent to the decoder for decoding the block, either explicitly or implicitly. [0045] In some embodiments, instead of direct coding of scale and offset values, a separate table (or a predefined set of permissible values) is defined at both encoder and decoder, with values assigned to each index, (i.e., an index is used to select a value from the predefined set of permissible values for scale or offset.) In some embodiment, indices from the predefined table are encoded and decoded, instead of the scale and offset values. Table 2A below shows example syntax for sending LIC scale and offset parameters using indices.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Xie with the signaling of indexes for the derivation of the scaling parameter as taught by Chubach in order to compensate for local illumination differences while keeping signaling overhead manageable [See Chubach].
In regards to claim 15, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed. Xie fails to explicitly disclose further comprising signaling the scaling factor for the current block in a video bitstream.
Chubach discloses further comprising signaling the scaling factor for the current block in a video bitstream ([0036] In some embodiments, for each block or CU that is coded by using LIC mode, the encoder specifies the scaling and offset parameters. The specified LIC scale and offset parameters are sent to the decoder for decoding the block, either explicitly or implicitly.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Xie with the signaling of the scaling parameter as taught by Chubach in order to compensate for local illumination differences while keeping signaling overhead manageable [See Chubach].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8-10, and 13 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights