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 § 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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2021/0227222) (hereinafter Lee).
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. Therefore, claim 20 is anticipated by Lee, as Lee discloses a computer readable medium storing a coded bitstream. Lee discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored therein a bitstream comprising video information generated by acts [¶0024; computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by a video coding method] comprising:
Claim(s) 1-4,13,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Serengin US 20200195935.
Regarding claim 1, Serengin meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A video decoding method, comprising:
parsing a bitstream to determine a first intra prediction flag corresponding to a current block (i.e. signaling information used by the decoder to determine intra prediction mode.) [30,178; fig. 6,11];
determining, according to prediction modes corresponding to one or more positions neighboring to the current block, M candidate prediction modes corresponding to the first intra prediction flag, wherein M is a positive integer (i.e. intra prediction data determines a plurality of intra prediction modes. Neighboring PU intra prediction modes used for prediction) [70-73,254-257; fig. 3a-e,11];
constructing an intra prediction mode list based on the M candidate prediction modes (i.e. MPM candidate list constructed based on M candidate prediction modes) [254-257; fig. 11], and
performing intra prediction on the current block based on the intra prediction mode list, to determine a prediction block of the current block (i.e. decoder uses intra prediction most in the MPM candidate list to perform intra prediction) [261-263; fig. 13];
determining a reconstructed block of the current block based on the prediction block of the current block (i.e. reconstructed video blocks are determined at the summer 90 and can be stored or transmitted.) [181; fig. 6].
Regarding claim 2, Serengin meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more positions neighboring to the current block comprise:
seven positions neighboring to the current block (i.e. seven neighboring positions shown) [69-70; fig. 3a-e]; or
nine positions neighboring to the current block; or
all positions neighboring to the current block; or
an adjacent position or a non-adjacent position corresponding to the current block (i.e. seven neighboring positions shown include adjacent and non-adjacent (AL,BL,BR)) [69-70; fig. 3a-e].
Regarding claim 3, Serengin meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 1, the determining, according to prediction modes corresponding to one or more positions neighboring to the current block, M candidate prediction modes corresponding to the first intra prediction flag comprises: determining at least one candidate prediction mode according a prediction mode corresponding to a current position, wherein the current position is one of the one or more positions (i.e. MPM candidate list constructed based on M candidate prediction modes can be equal to number of neighboring locations M) [73,254-257; fig. 11].
Regarding claim 4, Serengin meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the determining, according to the prediction modes corresponding to the one or more positions neighboring to the current block, the M candidate prediction modes corresponding to the first intra prediction flag comprises: determining a value of M according to the first intra prediction flag; determining the M candidate prediction modes according to prediction modes corresponding to all or part of the one or more positions neighboring to the current block, in a preset position sequence (i.e. MPM candidate list constructed based on M candidate prediction modes) [254-257; fig. 11].
Regarding claim 13, Serengin meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the M candidate prediction modes comprise no duplicate candidate prediction modes (i.e. MPM candidate list constructed based on M candidate prediction modes. If duplicate modes are considered, the coder adds only one instance of the mode) [81, 254-257; fig. 11].
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
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) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serengin in view of Lim US 20220321890.
Regarding claim 5, Serengin do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according the prediction mode corresponding to the current position comprises: in a case that the prediction mode corresponding to the current position is a spatial geometric partitioning mode, determining an angular prediction mode according to a partitioning direction of a prediction block including the current position, and determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according to the angular prediction mode
However, in the same field of endeavor Lim discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according the prediction mode corresponding to the current position comprises: in a case that the prediction mode corresponding to the current position is a spatial geometric partitioning mode, determining an angular prediction mode according to a partitioning direction of a prediction block including the current position, and determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according to the angular prediction mode (i.e. geometric partitions specified using distance angle) [790-795,900].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Serengin with Lim to have the determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according the prediction mode corresponding to the current position comprises: in a case that the prediction mode corresponding to the current position is a spatial geometric partitioning mode, determining an angular prediction mode according to a partitioning direction of a prediction block including the current position, and determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according to the angular prediction mode.
It would be advantageous because "[0007] By utilizing this image compression technology, data about images may be effectively compressed, transmitted, and stored.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Serengin with Lim to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Lim meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according the prediction mode corresponding to the current position comprises: in a case that the prediction mode corresponding to the current position is a spatial geometric partitioning mode, determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according to two intra prediction modes corresponding to two partitioning blocks corresponding to a prediction block including the current position (i.e. geometric partitions specified using distance angle) [790-795,900].
Regarding claim 7, Lim meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according the prediction mode corresponding to the current position comprises: in a case that the prediction mode corresponding to the current position is a geometric partitioning mode, determining an angular prediction mode according to a partitioning direction of a prediction block including the current position, and determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according to the angular prediction mode (i.e. partition direction used) [300,790-795; fig. 18].
Regarding claim 8, Lim meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according the prediction mode corresponding to the current position comprises: in a case that the prediction mode corresponding to the current position is a geometric partitioning mode, determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according to two intra prediction modes corresponding to two partitioning blocks corresponding to a prediction block including the current position (i.e. \ Multiple intra prediction modes used for predicting the current block.) [300,790-795; fig. 18,25].
Claim(s) 9,10,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serengin in view of Li US 20230179784.
Regarding claim 9, Serengin do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according the prediction mode corresponding to the current position comprises: in a case that the prediction mode corresponding to the current position is a template-based intra mode derivation mode, determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according to a prediction mode derived by the template-based intra prediction mode (i.e. TIMD uses candidate intra prediction modes) [110].
However, in the same field of endeavor Li discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according the prediction mode corresponding to the current position comprises: in a case that the prediction mode corresponding to the current position is a template-based intra mode derivation mode, determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according to a prediction mode derived by the template-based intra prediction mode (i.e. TIMD uses candidate intra prediction modes) [110].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Serengin with Li to have the determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according the prediction mode corresponding to the current position comprises: in a case that the prediction mode corresponding to the current position is a template-based intra mode derivation mode, determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according to a prediction mode derived by the template-based intra prediction mode.
It would be advantageous because "[0009] There can be many different forms of intra prediction. When more than one of such techniques can be used in a given video coding technology, the technique in use can be coded in an intra prediction mode. In certain cases, modes can have submodes and/or parameters, and those can be coded individually or included in the mode codeword. Which codeword to use for a given mode, submode, and/or parameter combination can have an impact in the coding efficiency gain through intra prediction, and so can the entropy coding technology used to translate the codewords into a bitstream.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Serengin with Li to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Li meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 3, wherein the determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according the prediction mode corresponding to the current position comprises:in a case that the prediction mode corresponding to the current position is a decoder-side intra mode derivation mode, determining the at least one candidate prediction mode according to a prediction mode derived by the decoder-side intra mode derivation mode (i.e. DIMD used to for intra prediction) [106-109].
Regarding claim 14, Li meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the first intra prediction flag comprises: one of a template-based multiple reference line intra prediction flag, a most probable mode flag, and a template-based intra mode derivation flag (i.e. TIMD flag) [110-111; table 2].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serengin in view of Ikeda US 20190238839.
Regarding claim 11, Serengin do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the method further comprises: performing extension on an angular prediction mode in the determined candidate prediction modes, and determining a candidate prediction mode according to an angular prediction mode obtained by the extension.
However, in the same field of endeavor Ikeda discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the method further comprises: performing extension on an angular prediction mode in the determined candidate prediction modes, and determining a candidate prediction mode according to an angular prediction mode obtained by the extension [186; fig. 11].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Serengin with Ikeda the method further comprises: performing extension on an angular prediction mode in the determined candidate prediction modes, and determining a candidate prediction mode according to an angular prediction mode obtained by the extension.
It would be advantageous because "[0001] The present disclosure relates to an image processing apparatus and an image processing method and, more particularly, to an image processing apparatus and an image processing method that can reduce overhead of coding processing in extending intra prediction to improve prediction accuracy.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Serengin with Ikeda to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 15-18 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.
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: 8:00 - 4:30 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