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 19 and 20 are 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.
Claim 19 is directed to a processing apparatus. There is no mention of any structure that makes up said apparatus in the body of the claim. The Examiner notes the preamble of the claim recites a processor and a non-transitory memory, however, said processor and non-transitory memory should be recited in the body of the claim in order to overcome this rejection.
Claim 20 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises:” Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory medium storing a bitstream of video wherein clauses that appear to describe how the bitstream was generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for storing the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. See MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, is a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a storage for information or data that is not meant for being executed, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. The Examiner suggests that the claim be amended so that it is directed to a functional relationship. For example, in this particular case, the claim could instead be recited as “A method of storing a bitstream of a video into a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium, wherein the bitstream is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises:”
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 11-17, 19, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,425,578. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below:
US Application 19/249,666
US Patent No. 12,425,578
Claim 1: A method of processing video data, comprising:
performing a conversion between a current block of a video and a bitstream of the video by using at least one of a combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP), a diffusion filtering, a bilateral filtering, a transform domain filtering, or another type of post-reconstruction filtering that is different from the diffusion filtering, the bilateral filtering and the transform domain filtering,
wherein reconstructed neighboring samples of the current block used in at least one of the CIIP, the diffusion filtering, the bilateral filtering, the transform domain filtering, or the another type of post-reconstruction filtering are replaced by approximated samples generated from corresponding samples of the reconstructed neighboring samples in one or more reference pictures.
Claim 1: A method of processing video data, comprising:
determining, during a conversion between a first block of a first picture in a video and a bitstream of the video, one or more coded modes of one or more second blocks;
determining, based on the one or more coded modes of the one or more second blocks, a coded mode constraint of the first block; and
performing the conversion at least by applying the coded mode constraint of the first block, wherein the coded mode constraint (a) is determined based on the one or more coded modes of the one or more second blocks and (b) specifies whether at least one of a combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP), a local illumination compensation (LIC), a diffusion filtering, a bilateral filtering, or a transform domain filtering is applied to the first block;
wherein the one or more second blocks comprise at least one of an adjacent block, a non-adjacent block, and a reference block of the first block, and
wherein reconstructed neighboring samples of the first block of the first picture used in at least one of the CIIP, the LIC, the diffusion filtering, the bilateral filtering, or the transform domain filtering are replaced by approximated samples generated from corresponding samples of the reconstructed neighboring samples in one or more reference pictures of the first picture only when the first block is coded with integer-pel precision.
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining characteristic of the current block; and
determining to replace the reconstructed neighboring samples with the approximated samples when the characteristic of the current block satisfies a predefined condition.
Claim 9: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining characteristic of the first block; and
determining to apply the coded mode constraint of the first block when the characteristic of the first block satisfies a predefined condition.
Claim 13: The method of claim 1, wherein neighboring samples of two reference blocks of the current block are averaged to generate the approximated samples when the current block is bi-predicted; or alternatively wherein neighboring samples of one reference block of the current block are used as the approximated samples when the current block is bi-predicted or uni-predicted.
Claim 11: The method of claim 1, wherein neighboring samples of two reference blocks of the first block are averaged to generate the approximated samples when the first block is bi-predicted; or alternatively wherein neighboring samples of one reference block of the first block are used as the approximated samples when the first block is bi-predicted or uni-predicted.
Claim 14: The method of claim 1, wherein neighboring samples of two reference blocks of the current block are weighted averaged to generate the approximated samples when the current block is bi-predicted and at least one of an unequal-weight generalized bi-prediction (GBi), a weighted prediction and the Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) is applied to the current block.
Claim 12: The method of claim 1, wherein neighboring samples of two reference blocks of the first block are weighted averaged to generate the approximated samples when the first block is bi-predicted and at least one of an unequal-weight generalized bi-prediction (GBI), a weighted prediction and the LIC is applied to the first block.
Claim 15: The method of claim 13, wherein the neighboring samples of reference blocks of the current block are identified by motion information of the current block, or alternatively
wherein the neighboring samples of the reference blocks of the current block are identified by modified motion information of the current block, and wherein the modified motion information of the current block is a modified motion vector which is rounded to integer precision, or alternatively
wherein the neighboring samples of the reference blocks of the current block are identified by motion vectors in integer-pel precision, and wherein the motion vectors of the reconstructed neighboring samples are rounded to integer precision so as to identify corresponding samples.
Claim 13: The method of claim 11, wherein the neighboring samples of reference blocks of the first block are identified by motion information of the first block; or alternatively
wherein the neighboring samples of the reference blocks of the first block are identified by modified motion information of the first block, and wherein the modified motion information of the first block is a modified motion vector which is rounded to integer precision; or alternatively
wherein the neighboring samples of the reference blocks of the first block are identified by motion vectors in integer-pel precision, and wherein the motion vectors of the reconstructed neighboring samples are rounded to integer precision so as to identify the corresponding samples.
Claim 16: The method of claim 1, wherein the reconstructed neighboring samples of the current block are replaced by the approximated samples for luma component or chroma component only.
Claim 14: The method of claim 1, wherein the reconstructed neighboring samples of the first block are replaced by the approximated samples for luma component or chroma component only.
Claim 17: The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current block into the bitstream.
Claim 15: The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the first block into the bitstream.
Claim 18: The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current block from the bitstream.
Claim 16: The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the first block from the bitstream.
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) 1-2, 10, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ko et al. (US 2020/0322601).
Regarding claim 1 Ko discloses a method of processing video data, comprising:
performing a conversion between a current block of a video and a bitstream of the video by using at least one of a combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP), a diffusion filtering, a bilateral filtering, a transform domain filtering, or another type of post-reconstruction filtering that is different from the diffusion filtering, the bilateral filtering and the transform domain filtering (Figure 1 shows a video encoding device that uses filtering unit 130 during the process of video encoding; Figure 2 shows video decoding device that uses filtering unit 230 during the process of video decoding),
wherein reconstructed neighboring samples of the current block used in at least one of the CIIP, the diffusion filtering, the bilateral filtering, the transform domain filtering, or the another type of post-reconstruction filtering are replaced by approximated samples generated from corresponding samples of the reconstructed neighboring samples in one or more reference pictures (when at least some of the reference samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the current block are unavailable, reference sample padding may be performed based on neighboring samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the collocated block – [0128]).
Regarding claim 2 Ko discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining characteristic of the current block; and determining to replace the reconstructed neighboring samples with the approximated samples when the characteristic of the current block satisfies a predefined condition (when at least some of the reference samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the current block are unavailable, reference sample padding may be performed based on neighboring samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the collocated block – [0128]; note the unavailability of the reference samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the current block is being interpreted as the characteristic of the current block).
Regarding claim 10 Ko discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining characteristics of previously coded blocks of the current block; and determining whether to replace the reconstructed neighboring samples with the approximated samples according to the characteristics of the previously coded blocks (when at least some of the reference samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the current block are unavailable, reference sample padding may be performed based on neighboring samples adjacent to the upper boundary of the collocated block – [0128]).
Regarding claim 17 Ko discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current block into the bitstream (video signal processing method and device for encoding or decoding a video signal – abstract).
Regarding claim 18 Ko discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current block from the bitstream (video signal processing method and device for encoding or decoding a video signal – abstract).
Claim 19 corresponds to the video processing apparatus that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is being rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 20 corresponds to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream. Ko discloses memory in paragraph 224.
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) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2020/0322601) in view of Kang et al. (US 2020/0059642).
Regarding claim 3 Ko discloses the method of claim 2. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the characteristic of the current block comprises at least one of a block size, a slice type, a picture type, a tile type and motion information.
In his disclosure Kang teaches the characteristic of the current block comprises at least one of a block size, a slice type, a picture type, a tile type and motion information (Reference sample padding according to the present invention may be adaptively performed depending on the type of the current picture – [0335]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Kang into the teachings of Ko because such incorporation enhances compression efficiency (paragraph 4).
Examiner’s Note: Claim 3 is written in an alternative form. The Examiner has chosen the picture type alternative.
Claim 4 further limits an option from claim 3 that was not chosen by the Examiner.
Claim 5 further limits an option from claim 3 that was not chosen by the Examiner.
Claim 6 further limits an option from claim 3 that was not chosen by the Examiner.
Claim 7 further limits an option from claim 3 that was not chosen by the Examiner.
Claim 8 further limits an option from claim 3 that was not chosen by the Examiner.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2020/0322601) in view of Han et al. (US 2016/0142726).
Regarding claim 9 Ko discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose determining a coded mode constraint of the current block, wherein information indicating whether to apply the coded mode constraint of the current block and/or to replace the reconstructed neighboring samples with the approximated samples in a sequence parameter set (SPS), in a view parameter set (VPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a sequence header, a picture header, a slice header, a tile group header, a tile, or a group of CTUs is signaled.
In his disclosure Han teaches determining a coded mode constraint of the current block, wherein information indicating whether to apply the coded mode constraint of the current block and/or to replace the reconstructed neighboring samples with the approximated samples (determining a coding mode for a current block based in a coding mode of one or more spatially adjacent previously coded blocks – [0065]; performing constrained or unconstrained decision mode coding on the current block based on the coding decision mode for the neighboring blocks – [0070]) in a sequence parameter set (SPS), in a view parameter set (VPS), a picture parameter set (PPS), a sequence header, a picture header, a slice header, a tile group header, a tile, or a group of CTUs is signaled (the coder may store a bit, or flag, indicating whether the previously coded block was coded as a constrained decision mode block or an unconstrained decision mode block – [0069]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Han into the teachings of Ko because such incorporation improves compression efficiency (paragraph 62).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2020/0322601) in view of Hsiao et al. (US 2020/0014931).
Regarding claim 11 Ko discloses the method of claim 10. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the characteristics of the previously coded blocks comprise at least one of a block dimension, a video processing data unit (VPDU), a picture type, a low delay check flag, coded information of the previously coded blocks.
In his disclosure Hsiao teaches the characteristics of the previously coded blocks comprise at least one of a block dimension, a video processing data unit (VPDU), a picture type, a low delay check flag, coded information of the previously coded blocks (if motion information of a spatial neighboring block for deriving an average candidate is unavailable, according to some embodiments, a predefined temporal block or a temporal block collocated to the spatial neighboring block is selected as a replacement block to replace the spatial neighboring block to generate a modified average candidate – [0055]; it is noted the motion information of the previously coded blocks is being interpreted as the coded information).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hsiao into the teachings of Ko because such incorporation would yield the predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Examiner’s Note: the provisional applications provide support for the above rejection.
Regarding claim 12 Ko discloses the method of claim 11. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coded information of the previously coded blocks indicates reference pictures, an uni-prediction or a bi-prediction.
In his disclosure Hsiao teaches the coded information of the previously coded blocks indicates reference pictures, an uni-prediction or a bi-prediction (if motion information of a spatial neighboring block for deriving an average candidate is unavailable, according to some embodiments, a predefined temporal block or a temporal block collocated to the spatial neighboring block is selected as a replacement block to replace the spatial neighboring block to generate a modified average candidate – [0055]; it is noted the motion information, such as spatial and/or temporal of the previously coded blocks is being interpreted as the coded information).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Hsiao into the teachings of Ko because such incorporation would yield the predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Examiner’s Note: the provisional applications provide support for the above rejection.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2020/0322601) in view of Jang et al. (US 2019/0306511).
Regarding claim 13 Ko discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein neighboring samples of two reference blocks of the current block are averaged to generate the approximated samples when the current block is bi-predicted; or alternatively wherein neighboring samples of one reference block of the current block are used as the approximated samples when the current block is bi-predicted or uni-predicted (a prediction sample may be derived based on a bidirectional interpolation of neighboring samples or an average value of neighboring samples – [0150], Figure 9).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Jang into the teachings of Ko because by such incorporation intra-prediction performance can be improved (abstract).
Regarding claim 15 Ko discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the neighboring samples of reference blocks of the current block are identified by motion information of the current block, or alternatively wherein the neighboring samples of the reference blocks of the current block are identified by modified motion information of the current block, and wherein the modified motion information of the current block is a modified motion vector which is rounded to integer precision, or alternatively wherein the neighboring samples of the reference blocks of the current block are identified by motion vectors in integer-pel precision, and wherein the motion vectors of the reconstructed neighboring samples are rounded to integer precision so as to identify corresponding samples (the motion estimation unit refers to a specific region of the reconstructed reference picture to obtain a motion vector value of the current region – [0054]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2020/0322601) in view of Yu et al. (US 2019/0313104).
Regarding claim 14 Ko discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein neighboring samples of two reference blocks of the current block are weighted averaged to generate the approximated samples when the current block is bi-predicted and at least one of an unequal-weight generalized bi-prediction (GBi), a weighted prediction and the Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) is applied to the current block.
In his disclosure Yu teaches wherein neighboring samples of two reference blocks of the current block are weighted averaged to generate the approximated samples when the current block is bi-predicted (when bi-prediction is used, JVET can use decoder-side motion vector refinement (DMVR) to find motion vectors, in DMVR, a weighted combination of prediction CUs generated with each of the two motion vectors can be found – [0048]) and at least one of an unequal-weight generalized bi-prediction (GBi), a weighted prediction and the Local Illumination Compensation (LIC) is applied to the current block (local illumination compensation – abstract, [0076, 0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Yu into the teachings of Ko because with such incorporation it is possible to more accurately and efficiently transmit and render video (abstract).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (US 2020/0322601) in view of Budagavi et al. (US 2012/0328013).
Regarding claim 16 Ko discloses the method of claim 1. However, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the reconstructed neighboring samples of the current block are replaced by the approximated samples for luma component or chroma component only.
In his disclosure Budagavi teaches the reconstructed neighboring samples of the current block are replaced by the approximated samples for luma component or chroma component only (is constrained intra-prediction mode is enabled, sample padding is performed on the immediate top neighboring reconstructed luma samples, the second left neighboring reconstructed luma samples, and the neighboring reconstructed chroma samples to replace any samples from inter-predicted Pus with values better suited for intra-prediction – [0088]).
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Budagavi into the teachings of Ko because such incorporation reduces the memory needed to support intra-prediction (par. [0038]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON whose telephone number is (571)270-1103. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY can be reached at (571)272-7331. 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.
/MARIA E VAZQUEZ COLON/ Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights