DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The Abstract is objected to because it contains language in the alternative. The Abstract recites, “[a] video encoding/decoding method is provided […]. A video encoding/decoding apparatus is also provided.”
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Co-pending 19/232,120
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of 19/232,120 in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0098063 A1) (hereinafter Chen).
Instant 19/231,948
Co-pending 19/232,120
1. A method of decoding a video signal, the method comprising:
1. A video decoding apparatus, comprising:
constructing an affine candidate list of a current block, wherein the affine candidate list comprises at least one of a spatial candidate, a temporal candidate, or a configured candidate, and a maximum number of affine candidates included in the affine candidate list is determined based on information about the maximum number parsed from a bitstream;
constructing an affine candidate list of a current block, wherein the affine candidate list comprises at least one of a spatial candidate, a temporal candidate, or a configured candidate, and a maximum number of affine candidates included in the affine candidate list is determined based on information about the maximum number parsed from a bitstream;
parsing an affine candidate index from the bitstream;
parsing an affine candidate index from the bitstream;
determining a control point vector of the current block based on the affine candidate list and the affine candidate index;
determining a control point vector of the current block based on the affine candidate list and the affine candidate index;
determining a motion vector of the current block based on the control point vector of the current block; and
determining a motion vector of the current block based on the control point vector of the current block and a size of the current block; and
performing an affine mode-based prediction of the current block based on the motion vector of the current block.
performing an affine mode-based prediction of the current block based on the motion vector of the current block,
Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application falls within the scope of claim 1 of co-pending application 19/232,120. Furthermore, claim 1 in the instant application differs from claim 1 in the co-pending in that it recites a method of decoding. However these limitations were known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as seen in Chen, wherein Paragraph [0006] disclose a method of decoding. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the instant invention to add the teachings of Chen as above, to be an efficient coding tool in any future video coding standards (Chen, Paragraphs [0004]-[0006]).
Regarding claims (2-8), claims (2-8) in the instant application correspond to
claims (2-5) in co-pending 19/232,120.
Regarding claims (9-16), claims (9-16) in the instant application correspond to
claims (6-10) in co-pending 19/232,120.
Regarding claims 17-20, claims (17-20) are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having limitations similar to the method of encoding of using the same as claimed in claims (10-12) treated in the above rejections. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims (17-20) correspond to method of encoding claims (10-12) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 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) 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2018/0098063 A1) (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claims 17-20, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a bitstream, wherein the bitstream is generated according to a method for encoding a video signal, the method comprising…” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process are the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “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, “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in claims 17-20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Chen which recites in Paragraph [0058], [0062] & [0205]-[0206] of storage media 28 may be configured to store encoded video data, such as encoded video data (e.g., a bitstream) received by input interface 26.
Dependent claims 18-20 fall accordingly.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 9 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2018/0098063 A1) (hereinafter Chen) in view of Lee (WO 2017/146526 A1) (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method of decoding a video signal [Paragraph [0006], method of decoding video data], the method comprising:
constructing an affine candidate list of a current block [Paragraph [0110], affine MVP set candidate lists], wherein the affine candidate list comprises at least one of a spatial candidate, a temporal candidate, or a configured candidate [Paragraph [0124]-[0145], the neighbor blocks are not limited to be spatial neighbor blocks. Rather, in some examples, temporal neighbor blocks are used];
parsing an affine candidate index from the bitstream [Paragraph [0109]-[0110], [0192] & [0206], affine flag, or index indicating position in the MVP set candidate list, as affine candidate index from NAL units];
determining a control point vector of the current block based on the affine candidate list and the affine candidate index [Paragraph [0109]-[0113] & [0212], Video decoder 30 may obtain the index from the bitstream and use the index to determine which of the candidates in candidate list 620 is the CPMVP as control point vector];
determining a motion vector of the current block based on the control point vector of the current block [Paragraph [0113]-[0118], Determining CPMV as motion vector of current block based upon CPMVP and MVD]; and
performing an affine mode-based prediction of the current block based on the motion vector of the current block [Paragraph [0113]-[0172], After CPMV is derived, the motion vector field of the current CU is generated using affine motion model, and then affine motion prediction is performed].
However, Chen does not explicitly disclose wherein the affine candidate list comprises a maximum number of affine candidates included in the affine candidate list is determined based on information about the maximum number parsed from a bitstream.
Lee teaches wherein the affine candidate list comprises a maximum number of affine candidates included in the affine candidate list is determined based on information about the maximum number parsed from a bitstream [Paragraph [138], alternatively, information indicating the maximum number of candidates that may be included in the candidate list may be separately signaled, and the maximum number of candidates that may be included in the candidate list may be variably determined using the information. The information indicating the maximum number of candidates may be signaled in at least one of a sequence level, a picture level, a slice level, or a block level].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to integrate the above teachings of Lee, encoding efficiency can be improved and increase the accuracy of intra/inter prediction of a block (Lee, Paragraph [21]-[23]).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is drawn to a method of encoding having limitations similar and reciprocal to the method of decoding of using the same as claimed in claim 1 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claim 9 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Chen discloses a method of encoding [Paragraph [0007], method of encoding video data].
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having limitations similar to the method of encoding of using the same as claimed in claim 9 treated in the above rejection. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 9 corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Furthermore, Chen discloses of non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising a bitstream [Paragraph [0058], [0062] & [0205]-[0206] of storage media 28 may be configured to store encoded video data, such as encoded video data (e.g., a bitstream) received by input interface 26].
Claims 2-8, 10-16 & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2018/0098063 A1) (hereinafter Chen) and Lee (WO 2017/146526 A1) (hereinafter Lee) in view of Akula et al., "Description of SDR, HDR and 360° video coding technology proposal considering mobile application scenario by Samsung, Huawei, GoPro, and HiSilicon," Joint Video Exploration Team (IVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, JVET-J0024_v2, 14 April 2018 (hereinafter Akula).
Regarding claim 2, Chen and Lee disclose the method according to claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, neither Chen nor Lee teach or suggest the particulars of claim 2.
Akula teaches of further comprising: parse information about a type of the affine mode from the bitstream, wherein the information indicates whether a 4-parameter-based affine mode is applied or a 6-parameter-based affine mode is applied [Section 3.1.4.5, Affine motion prediction, and when the CU is coded as affine inter mode, a model flag is signaled for specifying whether 4-parameter or 6-parameter affine model is used for this CU].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to integrate the above teachings of Akula, to provide a video compression technology which has significantly higher compression capability than the state-of-the-art HEVC standard for all the three categories while maintaining complexity (mostly power consumption) acceptable for mobile platform applications (Akula, Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Chen, Lee, and Akula disclose the method according to claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore Chen discloses wherein when the 4-parameter-based affine mode is applied, an affine candidate in the affine candidate list comprises two control point vectors, and determining the control point vector of the current block based on the affine candidate list and the affine candidate index comprises: determining two control point vectors indicated by the affine candidate index [Paragraph [0104]-[0111], [0116]-[0121], [0142], [0164]-[0168], 4-parameter affine motion vector with two control vectors V0, V1 derived from CPMV from affine candidate list and index].
Regarding claim 4, Chen, Lee, and Akula disclose the method according to claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore Chen discloses wherein when the 6-parameter-based affine mode is applied, an affine candidate in the affine candidate list comprises three control point vectors, and determining the control point vector of the current block based on the affine candidate list and the affine candidate index comprises: determining three control point vectors indicated by the affine candidate index [Paragraph [0104]-[0111], [0116]-[0123], [0141]-[0142], [0164]-[0168] & [0175]-[0177], 6-parameter affine motion vector with three control vectors V0, V1, V2 derived from CPMV from affine candidate list and index].
Regarding claim 5, Chen, Lee, and Akula disclose the method according to claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses wherein the configured candidate is determined based on a combination of at least two of control point vectors [Paragraph [0099] & [0178]-[0181], Each of the potential candidates is a combination of a List X motion vector of a block selected from blocks VA, VB and VC (FIG. 6A) and a List X motion vector of a block selected from VD and VE (FIG. 6A), or each of the potential candidates is a combination of List X motion vector of a block selected from blocks VA, VB and VC (FIG. 8A), a List X motion vector of a block selected from VD and VE (FIG. 8A), and a List X motion vector of a block selected from VF and VG (FIG. 8A)].
Regarding claim 6, Chen, Lee, and Akula disclose the method according to claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Chen discloses wherein when the 4-parameter-based affine mode is applied, the configured candidate is determined based on a combination of two control point vectors; or when the 6-parameter-based affine mode is applied, the configured candidate is determined based on a combination of three control point vectors [Paragraph [0099] & [0178]-[0181], Each of the potential candidates is a combination of a List X motion vector of a block selected from blocks VA, VB and VC (FIG. 6A) and a List X motion vector of a block selected from VD and VE (FIG. 6A), or each of the potential candidates is a combination of List X motion vector of a block selected from blocks VA, VB and VC (FIG. 8A), a List X motion vector of a block selected from VD and VE (FIG. 8A), and a List X motion vector of a block selected from VF and VG (FIG. 8A)].
Regarding claim 7, Chen, Lee, and Akula disclose the method according to claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Akula teaches wherein the two control point vectors comprise a first control point vector and a second control point vector, and determining the motion vector of the current block based on the control point vector of the current block comprises: determining the motion vector of the current block based on the first control point vector, the second control point vector, and a size of the current block [Section 3.1.4.5, Affine motion prediction, When merge/skip flag is false, and both width and height for the CU are larger than or equal to 8 (SIZE), an affine flag in CU level is signalled in the bitstream to indicate whether affine inter mode is used, and after the CPMV of the current CU
are derived, according to the number of affine parameters, the MVF of the current CU is generated according to Equation Error! Reference source not found. for 4-parameter affine model using w x h as width and height, respectively, of CU].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to integrate the above teachings of Akula, to provide a video compression technology which has significantly higher compression capability than the state-of-the-art HEVC standard for all the three categories while maintaining complexity (mostly power consumption) acceptable for mobile platform applications (Akula, Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Chen, Lee, and Akula disclose the method according to claim 4, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Akula teaches wherein the three control point vectors comprise a first control point vector, a second control point vector and a third control point vector, and determining the motion vector of the current block based on the control point vector of the current block comprises: determining the motion vector of the current block based on the first control point vector, the second control point vector, the third control point vector and a size of the current block [Section 3.1.4.5, Affine motion prediction, When merge/skip flag is false, and both width and height for the CU are larger than or equal to 8 (SIZE), an affine flag in CU level is signalled in the bitstream to indicate whether affine inter mode is used, and after the CPMV of the current CU
are derived, according to the number of affine parameters, the MVF of the current CU is generated according to Equation 5 for 6-parameter affine model using w x h as width and height, respectively, of CU].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Chen to integrate the above teachings of Akula, to provide a video compression technology which has significantly higher compression capability than the state-of-the-art HEVC standard for all the three categories while maintaining complexity (mostly power consumption) acceptable for mobile platform applications (Akula, Abstract).
Regarding claims 10-16, claims (10-16) are drawn to a method of encoding having limitations similar and reciprocal to the method of decoding of using the same as claimed in claims (2-8) treated in the above rejections. Therefore, method of encoding claims (10-16) correspond to method of decoding claims (2-8) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claims 18-20, claims (18-20) are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having limitations similar to the method of encoding of using the same as claimed in claims (10-12) treated in the above rejections. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims (18-20) correspond to method claims (10-12) and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights