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 § 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 7-9,16-18 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. In particular, the limitations as claimed refer to the “first value” as equal to 0 or 1, which was initially disclosed as according to the value of the angle parameter. This makes the claimed first value unclear as to whether the first value itself is an actual value or is functionally a binary choice. To this, claims 7-9 and 16-18 treat the claimed first value as a binary choice, which does not have any apparent association with the initially disclosed first value which relates to the angle parameter. For this reason, the claimed first value as recited in claims 7-9 and 16-18 are indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the claimed first values in claims 7-9 and 16-18 will be treated as a binary choice.
Additionally, claims 9,18 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. In particular, the limitations refer to specific definitions with incomplete context or insufficient definition. In particular, the claims refer to limitations of a “H”, “W”, “angleIdx”, and “distanceIdx”. However, these limitations are also recited in dependent claims 8, dependent on claim 1, and claim 17, dependent on claim 10, which provide clear and related definition to the limitations recited above. However, these definitions cannot be expressly read into the limitations of claims 9 and 18, rendering the instances of “H”, “W”, “angleIdx”, and “distanceIdx” in claims 9 and 18 indefinite. for the purposes of examination, the undefined limitations of claims 9 and 18 will be interpreted similarly as the definitions provided in claims 8 and 17.
Additionally, claim 20 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. In particular, dependent claim 20 relates to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16. This renders claim 20 indefinite since a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 16 is not a part of the claimed invention. Review of the claimed invention appears to either more accurately refer to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19 or the coder claim 16. However, if claim 20 refers to the coder claim 16, dependent on claim 10, it would be a redundant iteration of claim 15, dependent on claim 10. Until this inconsistency is addressed, for the purposes of examination, the “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16” will be interpreted as “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19
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.
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) 1,6-7,10,15-16,19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG; Hyeongmoon et al. (US 20190174128 A1) in view of KO; Geonjung et al. (US 20210037259 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Jang teaches,
A method, (Title, “Intra-prediction mode-based image processing method”) comprising:
obtaining a value of an angle parameter for a current block, (¶321, prediction directions of a “specific angle range among” the prediction directions of intra prediction mode candidates” of a current block) a value of a distance index, (¶191, “prediction error according to the distance from a reference sample” from each prediction sample within the current block) a value of a width of the current block, (¶321, “width” of the “width and height ratio of a current block”) a value of a height of the current block, (¶321, “height” of the “width and height ratio of a current block”) a first value according to the value of the angle parameter, (¶321, “sub-sampling prediction directions of a specific angle range”) and a comparison value between the value of the width of the current block and the value of the height of the current block; (¶321, “width and height ratio of a current block”)
But does not explicitly teach,
calculating a sample distance value for a sample in the current block according to an offsetX value and an offsetY value, wherein the offsetX and offsetY values are obtained according to the first value, the value of the angle parameter, the value of the distance index; and
obtaining a prediction value for the sample in the current block according to the sample distance value.
However, Ko teaches additionally,
calculating a sample distance value for a sample in the current block (¶136, “offset to the reference coordinate of the first step neighbor block” of the current block) according to an offsetX value and an offsetY value, (¶136, “the offset in the x-axis direction and the offset in the y-axis direction may be set”) wherein the offsetX and offsetY values are obtained (¶70 and 136, “values of offset1 and offset2” obtained by dividing the corresponding width and height of the current block “may be determined differently according to the ratio between the width and height”) according to the first value, (¶98 and 115, “applying a preset offset” according to an “intra prediction mode” such as when an intra mode index flag value indicates an “angle mode a+offset1” is indicated) the value of the angle parameter, (¶98, “applying a preset offset” according to an “angle mode” having a specific priority) the value of the distance index; (¶98, “applying a preset offset” according to a “preset offset” in a “preset angle range” set according to the “shape of the current block”) and
obtaining a prediction value for the sample in the current block (¶130, “intra prediction for the current block”) according to the sample distance value. (¶130, “intra prediction mode information for neighbor blocks” included in the MPM list of neighbor blocks corresponding to “angle modes obtained by applying a preset offset” used for intra prediction for the current block)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-prediction processing of Jang with the offset of Ko that presets the offset to angle modes. The offset setting of Ko can make use of an assigned priority to the angle modes.
Regarding claim 6, Jang with Ko teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Jang teaches additionally,
comparison value (¶321, “width and height ratio of a current block”) between the value of the width of the current block and the value of the height of the current block is true, (¶202,210-211,321, and fig. 11(b), “width and height in block structures having various width (horizontal) and height (vertical) ratios” of a current block “is assumed”) when the value of the height of the current block is greater or equal than the value of the width of the current block. (¶202,210-211,321, and fig. 11(b), “width (or horizontal) and height (or vertical) ratio of a current block is 1:2 is assumed” as depicted in fig. 11(b))
Regarding claim 7, Jang with Ko teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Ko teaches additionally,
the first value is equal to either 0 or 1. (¶115, “flag corresponding to the basic angle mode” for signaling intra prediction mode for the basic angle mode when the “value of the flag is 1” or the “value of the flag is 0”)
Regarding claim 10, it is the coder claim of method claim 1.
Jang teaches additionally,
A video coder, (Title, “Intra-prediction mode-based image processing” method and “device”) comprising:
one or more processors; (¶352-353, “hardware” using “processors, controllers, microcontrollers and/or microprocessors” to implement software code) and
a computer-readable storage medium (¶353, “Software code may be stored in memory”) coupled to the processors (¶353, “processor”) and storing programming for execution by the processors, (¶353, “Software code may be stored in memory and driven by a processor”) wherein the programming, when executed by the processors, configures the coder to carry out operations of: (¶353, “Software code may be stored in memory and driven by a processor” implemented in the form of a module, procedure, or function for performing the aforementioned functions or operations)
See the mapping of claim 1 to understand how the additional limitations of claim 10 are taught.
Regarding claim 15, dependent on claim 10, it is the coder claim of method claim 6, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 6 to teach the limitations of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, dependent on claim 10, it is the coder claim of method claim 7, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 7 to teach the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of method claim 1.
Jang teaches additionally,
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (¶353, “Software code may be stored in memory”) and one or more instructions executable by at least one processor to perform operations of encoding or decoding of the bitstream, the operations comprising: (¶353,80, and figs. 1-2, “Software code may be stored in memory and driven by a processor” implemented in the form of a module, procedure, or function for performing the aforementioned functions or operations such as the encoder 100 shown in fig. 1 and decoder 200 shown in fig. 2)
Regarding claim 20, dependent on claim 19, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim of method claim 6, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 6 to teach the limitations of claim 20.
Claim(s) 2,11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG; Hyeongmoon et al. (US 20190174128 A1) in view of KO; Geonjung et al. (US 20210037259 A1) in view of Lu; Mei-Hsuan et al. (US 20120307890 A1)
Regarding claim 2, Jang with Ko teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 2,
However, Lu teaches additionally,
first value represents a quantization step size (¶13, “quantization process may have a quantization step size” which relies on “quantization parameter rounding factor may comprise a fraction representing what portion of the quantization step size”) for the sample distance value calculation. (¶13, “quantization step size which corresponds to the numerical distance between adjacent values of the output range”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-prediction processing of Jang with the offset of Ko with the quantization parameter of Lu which indicates a quantization step size. Including this technique allows for improvements to computational efficiency of video encode
Regarding claim 11, dependent on claim 10, it is the coder claim of method claim 2, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 2 to teach the limitations of claim 11.
Claim(s) 3,12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG; Hyeongmoon et al. (US 20190174128 A1) in view of KO; Geonjung et al. (US 20210037259 A1) in view of MISRA; Kiran Mukesh et al. (US 20200137422 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Jang with Ko teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Ko teaches additionally,
sample distance value (¶136, “offset to the reference coordinate of the first step neighbor block”) represents a horizontal distance or a vertical distance, or a combination of the vertical and horizontal distances, of the sample (¶136, “offset may be configured to be proportional to the size of the current block” with a respective “width and height of the current block”)
But does not explicitly teach,
distance of the sample to a separation line, wherein the separation line divides a coding block into two sub-blocks.
However, Misra teaches additionally,
distance of the sample to a separation line, (¶62 and fig. 12, “p is a distance” from a center of “video block” from “partition line” as depicted in fig. 12) wherein the separation line divides a coding block into two sub-blocks. (¶25-30,62, and fig. 12, “partitioning line based on allowed values for the angle and the distance, wherein the allowed values are based on one or more of properties of video data or video coding parameters” such as “θ is an angle and p is a distance as illustrated in FIG. 12”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-prediction processing of Jang with the offset of Ko with the partition line distance reference of Misra which indicates a partition line from a point. This type of referencing incorporates techniques that may reduce data requirements by exploiting inherent redundancies in a video sequence.
Regarding claim 12, dependent on claim 10, it is the coder claim of method claim 3, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 3 to teach the limitations of claim 12.
Claim(s) 4,13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG; Hyeongmoon et al. (US 20190174128 A1) in view of KO; Geonjung et al. (US 20210037259 A1) in view LEE; Bae Keun (US 20210281830 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Jang with Ko teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 4,
However, Lee teaches additionally,
calculating two weighting factors (¶235, “weights applied to the first reference sample and the second reference sample”) based on the sample distance value; (¶235, weights applied “determined based on a distance between the prediction target sample and the reference sample”)
obtaining the prediction value for the sample in the current block (¶235, “prediction samples may be obtained based on a weighted sum operation” of the current block) based on a first prediction value, (¶235, “first reference sample”) a second prediction value (¶235, “second reference sample”) and the two weighting factors. (¶235, “weights applied to the first reference sample and the second reference sample”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-prediction processing of Jang with the offset of Ko with the weighted sum operation of Lee which determines weights based on a distance. This provides techniques that can increase accuracy of intra prediction.
Regarding claim 13, dependent on claim 10, it is the coder claim of method claim 4, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 4 to teach the limitations of claim 13.
Claim(s) 5,14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG; Hyeongmoon et al. (US 20190174128 A1) in view of KO; Geonjung et al. (US 20210037259 A1) in view of Chen; Peisong et al. (US 20110200111 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Jang with Ko teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Ko teaches additionally,
value of the angle parameter is an integer value, (¶114, “when the number of basic angle modes” in the prediction mode list is defined as “32”)
but does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 5,
However, Chen teaches additionally,
value of the angle parameter is an integer value, (¶175, “angle and length values can be stored by an integer”) a value range for the value of the angle parameter is between 0 to 31, including 0 and 31. (¶175, angle and length values can be stored by an integer, such that the “angle value may have a step size of one and a range between 0 and 31”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the intra-prediction processing of Jang with the offset of Ko with the angle values of Chen which defines geometric motion partition lines with an integer using a particular number of bits. This allows for the reduction or removal of spatial redundancy in the video.
Regarding claim 14, dependent on claim 10, it is the coder claim of method claim 5, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 5 to teach the limitations of claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 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; and, after addressing the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their indefinite limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-8PM 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 G. 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.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights