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
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.
[1] Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bordes et al. (“Bordes”) [US 20240283967 A1] in view of Coban et al. (“Coban”) [NPL titled, “Algorithm description of Enhanced Compression Model 13 (ECM 13)”] further in view of Gao et al. (“Gao”) [US 20180158173 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Bordes discloses the following claim limitations:
1. A method of video decoding (i.e. a video decoding method comprises), the method comprising [para. 006]: (i.e. the LIC parameters (a,b) are weight and offset based on the minimization of an error between current samples and linearly modified reference samples) [para. 0065] (i.e. estimating a in Eq. 3) and an offset parameter (i.e. estimating b in Eq. 3) for local illumination compensation (i.e. LIC parameters derivation according to equation 3) [Eq. 3; para. 0075] (i.e. LIC parameters are corrected accordingly) [para. 0104] (i.e. in step 382, the discontinuity size DS is compared to a discontinuity threshold DT, and the correction of LIC parameters is skipped if the discontinuity size DS is not greater than than the discontinuity threshold DT) [para. 0132; Fig. 16]; and performing local illumination compensation (i.e. implementing of LIC using a LIC model) using the derived scale (i.e. a in Eq. 1) and offset (i.e. b in Eq. 1) parameters [para. 0064; Eq. 1].
Bordes does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
1. determining whether video includes screen captured content;
based on whether the video includes screen captured content,
based on whether the video includes screen captured content
based on whether a product of scale and an offset
However, in the same field of endeavor Coban discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
1. determining whether video includes screen captured content (i.e. using different templates for LIC depending on if screen content coding or camera-captured coding is used) [page 12, lines 4-11];
based on whether the video includes screen captured content (i.e. using different templates for LIC depending on if screen content coding or camera-captured coding is used) [page 12, lines 4-11],
based on whether the video includes screen captured content (i.e. using different templates for LIC depending on if screen content coding or camera-captured coding is used) [page 12, lines 4-11]
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Bordes with Coban to implement the template selection of Coban based on the content type to the LIC model of Bordes, the motivation being to use template selection to optimize the template cost [Coban: page 11, lines 34-37].
Bordes and Coban do not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
1. based on whether a product of scale and an offset;
However, in the same field of endeavor Gao discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
1. based on whether a product of scale and an offset (i.e. the product of the scale factor and the digital offset value) [para. 0058]
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Coban and Bordes with Gao to use the calculated product of a scale factor and offset value as the threshold condition to determine whether to adjust the LIC parameters, the motivation being that the resulting scaled digital offset value may compensate for various sources related to the non-uniform performances of pixels [Gao: para. 0024].
Regarding claim 2, Bordes discloses the following claim limitations:
2. A device (i.e. System 1000 can be embodied as a device) comprising one or more processors (i.e. the system 1000 includes at least one processor 1010 configured to) configured to [para. 0079; para. 0080]: (i.e. the LIC parameters (a,b) are weight and offset based on the minimization of an error between current samples and linearly modified reference samples) [para. 0065] (i.e. estimating a in Eq. 3) and an offset (i.e. estimating b in Eq. 3) parameter for local illumination compensation (i.e. LIC parameters derivation according to equation 3) [Eq. 3; para. 0075] includes performing local illumination compensation parameter refinement (i.e. LIC parameters are corrected accordingly) [para. 0104] (i.e. in step 382, the discontinuity size DS is compared to a discontinuity threshold DT, and the correction of LIC parameters is skipped if the discontinuity size DS is not greater than than the discontinuity threshold DT) [para. 0132; Fig. 16]; and perform local illumination compensation (i.e. the LIC can be mathematically modeled by Equation 1) using the derived scale (i.e. α is a parameter of the LIC equation) and offset parameters (i.e. β is a parameter of the LIC equation) [para. 0076; Equation 1].
Bordes does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
2. determine whether video includes screen captured content;
based on whether the video includes screen captured content,
based on whether the video includes screen captured content
based on whether a product of scale and offset;
However, in the same field of endeavor Xiu discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
2. determine whether video includes screen captured content (i.e. using different templates for LIC depending on if screen content coding or camera-captured coding is used) [page 12, lines 4-11];
based on whether the video includes screen captured content (i.e. using different templates for LIC depending on if screen content coding or camera-captured coding is used) [page 12, lines 4-9],
based on whether the video includes screen captured content (i.e. using different templates for LIC depending on if screen content coding or camera-captured coding is used) [page 12, lines 4-9]
Bordes and Xiu do not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
2. based on whether a product of scale and offset
However, in the same field of endeavor Gao discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
2. based on whether a product of scale and offset (i.e. the product of the scale factor and the digital offset value) [para. 0058]
Regarding claim 3, Bordes discloses the following claim limitations:
3. The device of claim 2, wherein deriving a scale (i.e. weight) and an offset (i.e. offset) parameter for local illumination compensation (i.e. the LIC parameters (a,b) are weight and offset based on the minimization of an error between current samples and linearly modified reference samples) [para. 0065] (i.e. a regularization function is applied in step 350, once the LIC parameters have been computed in order to potentially correct the previously determined LIC parameters) (i.e. a regularization function is applied in step 350, once the LIC parameters have been computed in order to potentially correct the previously determined LIC parameters) [para. 0105]
Bordes does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
3. based on whether the video includes screen captured content
if the video includes screen captured content
if the video does not include screen captured content.
However, in the same field of endeavor Coban discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
3. based on whether the video includes screen captured content (i.e. using different templates for LIC depending on if screen content coding or camera-captured coding is used) [page 12, lines 4-11]
if the video includes screen captured content (i.e. choosing a template for LIC if screen content coding is used) [page 12, lines 8-11]
if the video does not include screen captured content (i.e. choosing a template for LIC if camera-captured coding is used) [page 12, line 9].
Regarding claim 4, Bordes discloses the following claim limitations:
4. The device of claim 3, wherein the first value is equal to 1/256 (i.e. the value of N may be furtherly adjusted (reduced incrementally) in order to the sum terms in eq. 3 to remain below the maximum integer storage number value allowed (e.g. sum term < 216). 1/256 is in the range of 1/N where in N<216) and the second value is equal to 1/128 (i.e. the value of N may be furtherly adjusted (reduced incrementally) in order to the sum terms in eq. 3 to remain below the maximum integer storage number value allowed (e.g. sum term < 216). 1/128 is in the range of 1/N where in N<216) [para. 0070].
Regarding claim 5, Bordes discloses the following claim limitations:
5. The device of claim 2, wherein the device includes a video decoder (i.e. FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of an example of video decoder 200) [para. 0015].
Regarding claim 6, Bordes discloses the following claim limitations:
6. The device of claim 2, wherein the device includes a video encoder (i.e. FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example of video encoder 100) [para. 0014].
Conclusion
[2] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose B. Rodriguez whose telephone number is (571) 270-0829. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 a.m. - 5 p.m., Friday 7:30 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET.
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 at (561) 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.
/J.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2488 July 14, 2026
/SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights