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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-3, 5-10, 15-17, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen US 20230135378in view of Deng US 20220385948.
Regarding claim 1, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method of video decoding [fig. 8], comprising:
receiving a coded video bitstream comprising coded information of a current block in a current picture, the coded information indicating that the current block is coded by an intra prediction using an affine intra mode (AIM) model (i.e. affine flag signaled in bitstream received by decoder) [137,149];
determining the affine intra mode model for the current block (i.e. affine models determined using the parameters) [133-135,137,149; fig. 14];
determining at least a first intra angular mode for a first sample in the current block and a second intra angular mode for a second sample in the current block according to the affine intra mode model, the first intra angular mode being different from the second intra angular mode (i.e. MV of each sub block 1402 is calculated according to eq 1 using the derived MV 1401. These MV are angular and different from each other.) [137; fig. 1a,1b,14]; and
reconstructing the current block based on the intra prediction using the affine intra mode model, the first sample being predicted based on the first intra angular mode and the second sample being predicted based on the second intra angular mode (i.e. reconstruction of the blocks is performed using the decoder information which is based on the samples and prediction modes) [75,84,93].
Chen do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
determining at least a first intra angular mode of the intra prediction for a first sample in the current block and a second intra angular mode of the intra prediction for a second sample in the current block according to the affine intra mode model, the first intra angular mode being different from the second intra angular mode; and
However, in the same field of endeavor Deng discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
determining at least a first intra angular mode of the intra prediction for a first sample in the current block and a second intra angular mode of the intra prediction for a second sample in the current block according to the affine intra mode model, the first intra angular mode being different from the second intra angular mode (i.e. In one example, the coding methods may include normal intra prediction method, ISP, affine intra prediction method, MRL, etc. al. This shows that affine intra mode can be used and teaches intra angular modes used for the modes) [23,37,69,77-85,139-148,206-207,358,363; fig. 1,2,8a]; and
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Chen with Deng to have determining at least a first intra angular mode of the intra prediction for a first sample in the current block and a second intra angular mode of the intra prediction for a second sample in the current block according to the affine intra mode model, the first intra angular mode being different from the second intra angular mode.
It would be advantageous because using intra prediction direction modes would enable a reference direction to be used without neighboring frames.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Chen with Deng to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the affine intra mode model comprises at least one of: deriving the affine intra mode model based on one or more intra angular modes associated with neighboring blocks of the current block; and determining the affine intra mode model based on one or more syntaxes in the coded information of the current block (i.e. affine flag signaled in bitstream and another flag is signaled to indicate 4 or 6 affine model use) [149].
Regarding claim 3, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the affine intra mode model is used to derive at least one of an angle, vectors associated with the angle (i.e. MV of each sub block 1402 is calculated according to eq 1 using the derived MV 1401. These MV are angular and different from each other) [137; fig. 14], one or more trigonometric function value of the angle for a location in the current block.
Regarding claim 5, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the coded information of the current block includes a flag that indicates whether the current block is coded by using the affine intra mode model (i.e. affine flag signaled in bitstream indicates coding in affine) [137,149].
Regarding claim 6, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the affine intra mode model further comprises: deriving the affine intra mode model based on two or more control point intra modes (CPIMs), a CPIM being an intra angular mode associated with a neighboring block of the current block in the current picture (i.e. at least 2 control points used in the model. Control points have an associated directional mode) [133-136].
Regarding claim 7, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein a first CPIM associated with a first neighboring block and a second CPIM associated with a second neighboring block are available, the deriving the affine intra mode model comprises: deriving the affine intra mode model based on the first CPIM and the second CPIM (i.e. at least 2 control points used in deriving the model. Control points have an associated directional mode) [133-136,145].
Regarding claim 8, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein a first CPIM associated with a first neighboring block and a second CPIM associated with a second neighboring block are available, the deriving the affine intra mode model comprises: deriving a third CPIM associated with a third neighboring block of the current block based on the first CPIM and the second CPIM; and deriving the affine intra mode model based on the first CPIM, the second CPIM and the third CPIM (i.e. 3 control points used in deriving the model when a 6 parameter affine model is used) [133-136,145].
Regarding claim 9, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein a first CPIM associated with a first neighboring block, a second CPIM associated with a second neighboring block and a third CPIM associated with a third neighboring block are available, the deriving the affine intra mode model comprises: deriving the affine intra mode model based on the first CPIM, the second CPIM and the third CPIM (i.e. 3 control points used in deriving the model when a 6 parameter affine model is used) [133-136,145].
Regarding claim 10, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 6, wherein a plurality of CPIMs are available, the deriving the affine intra mode model comprises:
constructing a combination list from the plurality of CPIMs, the combination list comprising combination candidates of CPIMs, a combination candidate being a combination of two or three CPIMs from the plurality of CPIMs (i.e. combinations of control points used and added to the affine merge list) [133-136,144-145];
determining a selected combination candidate from the combination list based on an index that is signaled in the coded video bitstream (i.e. affine merge candidates and an index is signaled to indicate one used for the current CU) [139]; and
deriving the affine intra mode model based on the selected combination candidate (i.e. candidates derived using the combination) [139-142].
Regarding claim 15, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining at least the first intra angular mode for the first sample and the second intra angular mode for the second sample comprises: determining intra angular modes in a sample-wise for samples in the current block according to the affine intra mode model (i.e. affine models determined using the parameters for each sample location) [133-135,137,149; fig. 14].
Regarding claim 16, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the determining at least the first intra angular mode for the first sample and the second intra angular mode for the second sample comprises: determining the first intra angular mode for a first subblock of the current block including the first sample, and the second intra angular mode for a second subblock of the current block including the second sample (i.e. affine models determined using the parameters for each sample location) [133-135,137,149; fig. 14].
Regarding claim 17, Chen meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim1, wherein the reconstructing comprises: generating first predicted samples of a first line in the current block; and generating second predicted samples of a second line in the current block by using the first predicted samples as reference samples (i.e. affine models determined using the parameters for each sample location. The first sample could be a first sub block and the second sample could be a sub block on the second line.) [133-135,137,149; fig. 14].
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1. Claim 19 is the corresponding encoder of the decoder of claim 1. Fig. 7 of Chen describes encoder.
Claim 21 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Deng in view of Cao US 20230124010.
Regarding claim 4, Chen and Deng do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the affine intra mode model is configured to derive an angle for a location in the current block, and the method further comprises: determining an intra angular mode associated with the angle according to a predefined angle table that maps angles to intra angular modes.
However, in the same field of endeavor Cao discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the affine intra mode model is configured to derive an angle for a location in the current block, and the method further comprises: determining an intra angular mode associated with the angle according to a predefined angle table that maps angles to intra angular modes (i.e. The computing device (or component thereof) may then increment the index (e.g., to compare the value with all index values). In some cases, values in the table are associated with intra-prediction angles. In some examples, the table may include 18 values, where a value of the 18 values is associated with an angle after a 45-degree angle tan(45) (e.g., the value 67584 in the predefined angle table {0, 2048, 4096, 6144, 8192, 12288, 16384, 20480, 24576, 28672, 32768, 36864, 40960, 47104, 53248, 59392, 65536, 67584})) [98; fig. 7].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Chen and Deng with Cao to have the affine intra mode model is configured to derive an angle for a location in the current block, and the method further comprises: determining an intra angular mode associated with the angle according to a predefined angle table that maps angles to intra angular modes.
It would be advantageous because "An important goal of video coding techniques is to compress video data into a form that uses a lower bit rate, while avoiding or minimizing degradations to video quality. With ever-evolving video services becoming available, encoding techniques with improved coding accuracy or efficiency are needed.” [4].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Chen and Deng with Cao to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 and 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.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art does not disclose: when the prediction angle is out of an angle range of a set of intra angular modes, determining a specific intra angular mode for the sample, the specific intra angular mode being a clipped intra angular mode in the set of intra angular modes that has a closest mapping angle to the prediction angle.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights