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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xiu et al. (“Xiu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0336738).
In regard to claim 20, claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored therein a bitstream generated by acts. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable medium is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, these claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content (a bitstream generated by a method).
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. In conclusion, claim 20 and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer-readable storage medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
The examiner recommends amending the claim language to include instructions, that when executed by a processor, execute the steps claimed.
Therefore, claim 20 is anticipated by Xiu, as Xiu discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream. Xiu discloses, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts (See ¶0160).
Claim(s) 1 and 14-20 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xiu et al. (“Xiu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0336738).
In regards to claim 1, Xiu teaches a method for processing video data, comprising:
determining to apply a multiple-parameter local illumination compensation (MPLIC) model to a first block of a video (See Abstract, ¶0003, 0007, 0043-0045 and 0092-0094; also see 0068-0077 and 0082-0085 for more information); and
performing a conversion between the first block and a bitstream of the video based on the MPLIC model (See Abstract, ¶0003, 0007, 0042-0045 and 0092-0094 in view of FIG. 1 and 2).
In regards to claim 14, Xiu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the bitstream includes a syntax element indicating whether a prediction mode is chosen for the first block, wherein the prediction mode is based on MPLIC model, wherein the prediction mode is based on direct current (DC) prediction, or wherein the prediction mode is based on multi-model local illumination compensation (LIC) (See ¶0042-0045).
In regards to claim 15, Xiu teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the syntax element depends on at least one of: whether the first block is coded by an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) mode, whether the first block is coded by a merge mode, whether the first block is uni-predicted, whether the first block is bi-predicted, a type of merge prediction used, or wherein when the first block is bi-predicted, the syntax element is inferred to be false, or wherein the syntax element is signaled only for a subset or all of Y, U, V planes, or wherein the syntax element is conditionally signaled, wherein signaling of the syntax element depends on at least one of: a dimension of the first block, a quantization parameter (QP) used to code the first block, or wherein the syntax element is only signaled when the dimension of the first block is greater than, lower than, no greater than, or no lower than a pre-defined size, or wherein the syntax element is only signaled when a sum of width and height of the first block is greater than, lower than, no greater than, or no lower than a pre-defined threshold, or wherein the syntax element is only signaled when the QP for the first block is greater than, lower than, no greater than, or no lower than a pre-defined threshold, or wherein the syntax element is binarized as a fixed length code, a truncated unary code, or an exponential Golomb code, or wherein the syntax element is coded with at least one coding context in arithmetic coding, or wherein the syntax element is coded with bypass coding (See ¶0042-0045 and 0060-0070).
In regards to claim 16, Xiu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a usage of the method is signaled at a sequence level, a group of pictures level, a picture level, a slice level, or a tile group level, or wherein the usage of the method is signaled in a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a decoding parameter set (DPS), decoding capability information (DCI), a picture parameter set (PPS), an adaptation parameter set (APS), a slice header, or a tile group header, or wherein the usage of the method is signaled at a prediction block (PB), a transform block (TB), a coding block (CB), a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a coding unit (CU), a virtual pipeline data unit (VPDU), a coding tree unit (CTU), a CTU row, a slice, a tile, a sub-picture, and/or other kinds of region containing more than one sample or pixel, or wherein application of the method is dependent on coded information including a block size, a color format, single tree partitioning, dual tree partitioning, a color component, a slice type, or a picture type (See ¶0054 and 0003).
In regards to claim 17, Xiu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the first block into the bitstream (See FIG. 1).
In regards to claim 18, Xiu teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the first block from the bitstream (See FIG. 2).
In regards to claim 19, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Xiu, wherein the processor and memory are taught as seen in ¶0120-0121, 0125-0129 and 0160.
In regards to claim 20, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Xiu, wherein the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is taught as seen in ¶0120-0121, 0125-0129 and 0160.
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) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu et al. (“Xiu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0336738).
In regards to claim 2, Xiu fails to explicitly teach the method of claim 1, wherein the MPLIC model is applied as follows:
Ypred = α0Y0+α1Y1+α2Y2 … +αN-1YN-1+β
where Ypred is a predicted sample, Y0, Y1, Y2, . . . . YN−1 are reference samples derived based on at least one motion vector (MV), α0, α1, α2, . . . αN−1, β are model parameters of the MPLIC model, and N is a positive integer.
That is, Xiu does not teach the formula in the exact same format as is claimed.
However, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Xiu does indeed teach an obvious variant to the claimed formula as seen in ¶0043 wherein P(x,y) is a prediction signal and corresponds to Ypred which is claimed as the predicted sample, with α and β being which are a scaling factor and an offset, respectively, to the reference block and correspond to α and β being claimed, and Pr is a reference block pointed by a motion vector and corresponds to Y which is claimed as a predicted sample derived based on at least one motion vector.
Therefore, in view of Xiu’s own teachings and given context, Xiu teaches wherein the MPLIC model is applied as follows:
Ypred= α0Y0+α1Y1+α2Y2 … +αN-1YN-1+β
where Ypred is a predicted sample, Y0, Y1, Y2, . . . . YN−1 are reference samples derived based on at least one motion vector (MV), α0, α1, α2, . . . αN−1, β are model parameters of the MPLIC model, and N is a positive integer (See ¶0043-0044).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Xiu’s own teaching as each of the parameters correspond to the claimed formula, additionally it may improve coding efficiency as described in at least ¶0035-0036.
In regards to claim 3, Xiu teaches the method of claim 2, wherein Y0 is a reference sample pointed by a motion vector (MV) for a current sample, and Y1, Y2, . . . . YN−1 are neighboring samples of Y0 (See ¶0042-0045).
In regards to claim 4, Xiu teaches the method of claim 2, wherein Y0 is a reference sample for a current sample derived based on at least one MV (See ¶0042-0045), and wherein Yi is derived with a predefined offset relative to Y0, where i=1, 2, . . . , N−1 (See ¶0043-0045 and 0069), and wherein Y0 is a reference sample derived based on one motion vector (MV) when the first block uses uni-prediction (See ¶0045 and 0061), wherein Y0 is a reference sample derived based on two MVs when the first block uses bi-prediction and only one model is derived, or wherein Y0 is a reference sample derived based on one MV when the first block uses bi-prediction and two models are derived for two directions (See at least ¶0045 and 0069-0070).
In regards to claim 5, Xiu teaches the method of claim 2, wherein Y0 is a reference sample obtained by a block vector or template matching tools (See ¶0042-0045 and 0005-0008).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu et al. (“Xiu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0336738) in view of Jun et al., (“Jun”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0166375).
In regards to claim 6, Xiu fails to teach the method of claim 2, wherein a choice of N and neighboring samples Y1, Y2, . . . . YN−1 depends on factors including coding information including a block size and/or a quantization parameter (QP) value, and wherein different choices are employed at a sequence level, a picture level, a slice level, a tile level, a coding tree unit (CTU) level, a coding unit (CU) level, or combinations thereof.
In a similar endeavor Jun teaches wherein a choice of N and neighboring samples Y1, Y2, . . . . YN−1 depends on factors including coding information including a block size and/or a quantization parameter (QP) value (See ¶0009 and 0019), and wherein different choices are employed at a sequence level, a picture level, a slice level, a tile level, a coding tree unit (CTU) level, a coding unit (CU) level, or combinations thereof (See ¶0243).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Jun into Xiu because it allows for samples based on size as would be understood with regards to pixels around the current coding unit.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu et al. (“Xiu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0336738) in view of Bae et al. (“Bae”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2025/0227261).
In regards to claim 7, Xiu fails to teach the method of claim 2, wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is applied to all or a subset of color components, or wherein a choice of N and neighboring samples Y1, Y0, . . . . YN−1 is different for different color components, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is applied only for a luma component, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is applied only for uni-prediction or for both uni-prediction and bi-prediction, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is used only when a motion vector is not of fractional precision, or wherein when a motion vector is of integer precision, a method based on the MPLIC model completely replaces a LIC method, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is applied only when a MV precision is full-pel at least for an adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR) mode, or wherein when a method based on the MPLIC model is applied, a motion vector is only signaled as full-pel at least, or when a method based on the MPLIC model is applied, a motion vector is rounded to full-pel.
In a similar endeavor Bae teaches wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is applied to all or a subset of color components, or wherein a choice of N and neighboring samples Y1, Y0, . . . . YN−1 is different for different color components, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is applied only for a luma component, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is applied only for uni-prediction or for both uni-prediction and bi-prediction, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is used only when a motion vector is not of fractional precision, or wherein when a motion vector is of integer precision, a method based on the MPLIC model completely replaces a LIC method, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is applied only when a MV precision is full-pel at least for an adaptive motion vector resolution (AMVR) mode, or wherein when a method based on the MPLIC model is applied, a motion vector is only signaled as full-pel at least, or when a method based on the MPLIC model is applied, a motion vector is rounded to full-pel (See ¶0081-0082).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Bae into Xiu because it allows for the activation of LIC for color components of a desired CU as described in at least ¶0081.
In regards to claim 8, Xiu fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is used as an additional mode for local illumination compensation (LIC) or replace a LIC method, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is used for a block employing an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) coding mode, an affine-AMVP coding mode, or a merge mode, or a sub-block merge mode, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is used for certain sequences, frames, block sizes, quantization parameter (QP) values, or combinations thereof.
In a similar endeavor Bae teaches wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is used as an additional mode for local illumination compensation (LIC) or replace a LIC method, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is used for a block employing an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) coding mode, an affine-AMVP coding mode, or a merge mode, or a sub-block merge mode, or wherein a method based on the MPLIC model is used for certain sequences, frames, block sizes, quantization parameter (QP) values, or combinations thereof (See ¶0081-0082).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Bae into Xiu because it allows for the activation of LIC for color components of a desired CU as described in at least ¶0081.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu et al. (“Xiu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0336738) in view of Bordes et al. (“Bordes”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2024/0283967).
In regards to claim 9, Xiu fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein at least two different models are employed, and wherein a first model of the at least two different models processes samples along rows and a second model of the at least two different models subsequently processes samples along columns, or the first model of the at least two different models processes samples along columns and the second model of the at least two different models subsequently processes samples along rows, or wherein a number of models to be applied depends precision of a motion vector, or wherein a usage of the MPLIC model is inherited from a usage of the MPLIC model in a neighbor block when the first block uses a merge mode, or wherein for every merge candidate denoted as X that uses a two parameter LIC model, an additional merge candidate is inserted into a motion vector candidate list, or wherein a new merge candidate inherits all information of the merge candidate X and a LIC model is replaced with the MPLIC model, or wherein only a subset of candidates in a motion vector candidate list is considered for constructing new merge candidates with the MPLIC model, or wherein the first block is coded with a regular merge mode, a motion vector difference (MMVD) mode, an affine-merge mode, a subblock merge mode, a template matching merge mode, or combination thereof, or wherein a motion vector candidate list is a regular merge list, an affine-merge list, a template matching merge list, or combinations thereof.
In a similar endeavor Bordes teaches wherein at least two different models are employed, and wherein a first model of the at least two different models processes samples along rows and a second model of the at least two different models subsequently processes samples along columns, or the first model of the at least two different models processes samples along columns and the second model of the at least two different models subsequently processes samples along rows, or wherein a number of models to be applied depends precision of a motion vector, or wherein a usage of the MPLIC model is inherited from a usage of the MPLIC model in a neighbor block when the first block uses a merge mode, or wherein for every merge candidate denoted as X that uses a two parameter LIC model, an additional merge candidate is inserted into a motion vector candidate list, or wherein a new merge candidate inherits all information of the merge candidate X and a LIC model is replaced with the MPLIC model, or wherein only a subset of candidates in a motion vector candidate list is considered for constructing new merge candidates with the MPLIC model, or wherein the first block is coded with a regular merge mode, a motion vector difference (MMVD) mode, an affine-merge mode, a subblock merge mode, a template matching merge mode, or combination thereof, or wherein a motion vector candidate list is a regular merge list, an affine-merge list, a template matching merge list, or combinations thereof (See ¶0101, 0120-0121 in view of 0049-0050).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Bordes into Xiu because it allows for the use of candidate list for encoding and decoding as seen in at least ¶0049-0050, thus increasing quality through the use of candidate vectors for motion vector data.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu et al. (“Xiu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0336738) in view of Huang et al. (“Huang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0247216).
In regards to claim 13, Xiu fails to teach the method of claim 1, wherein in a multi-model local illumination compensation (LIC), reference samples are classified into different subsets, and wherein a different LIC model is applied for each subset, wherein the LIC model for a subset is a two-parameter linear model or a multi-parameter linear model or a combination thereof, or wherein classification of the reference samples is based on a pre-defined threshold or clustering, or wherein the pre-defined threshold is explicitly signaled, or wherein selecting between an implicit threshold and an explicitly signaled threshold is employed, or wherein when used with a geometric partition mode (GPM), classification of the reference samples is based on a partition of a template obtained by partitioning in the GPM, or wherein a usage of the multi-model LIC depends on coding information including a block size and/or a quantization parameter (QP).
In a similar endeavor Huang teaches wherein in a multi-model local illumination compensation (LIC), reference samples are classified into different subsets, and wherein a different LIC model is applied for each subset, wherein the LIC model for a subset is a two-parameter linear model or a multi-parameter linear model or a combination thereof, or wherein classification of the reference samples is based on a pre-defined threshold or clustering, or wherein the pre-defined threshold is explicitly signaled, or wherein selecting between an implicit threshold and an explicitly signaled threshold is employed, or wherein when used with a geometric partition mode (GPM), classification of the reference samples is based on a partition of a template obtained by partitioning in the GPM, or wherein a usage of the multi-model LIC depends on coding information including a block size and/or a quantization parameter (QP) (See ¶0278-0282 in view of 0180).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Huang into Xiu because it allows for consideration of candidates based on the block size or number of pixels as described in ¶0282.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights