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) 1-6,11, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Chang US 20220329822.
Regarding claim 1, Chang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method of video decoding, comprising:
receiving a video bitstream including coded information associated with a current block in a current picture, the current block including a luma component and a chroma component (i.e. bitstreams contains information including luma and chroma information.) [50,51,67,226],
the coded information indicating whether an intra template matching prediction (intraTMP) mode is applied to the current block, the intraTMP mode being configured to determine a prediction block of the current block based on a template-matching cost between a template of the current block and a template of the prediction block (i.e. TM refinement performed. TM cost can reorder the candidates. This is based on cost to determine the coded information which can be intra prediction) [5,30,59,85,122,167];
when the coded information indicates that the intraTMP mode is applied to the current block, determining (i) a block vector (BV) for the luma component of the current block based on the intraTMP mode and (ii) a BV for the chroma component of the current block based on the determined BV for the luma component of the current block (i.e. MV determined for luma sample and the chroma is calculated as the average of the luma sample MVs) [85,119]; and
reconstructing the current block based on the determined BV for the luma component and the determined BV for the chroma component (i.e. reconstruction current block based on prediction block) [91 fig. 3,12].
Regarding claim 2, Chang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the coded information includes a first syntax element that indicates whether the intraTMP mode is applied to the luma component of the current block and a second syntax element that indicates whether the intraTMP mode is applied to the chroma component of the current block (i.e. A component is an array or single sample from one of the three arrays (luma and two chroma) that compose a picture in 4:2:0, 4:2:2, or 4:4:4 color format or the array or a single sample of the array that compose a picture in monochrome format.) [51,59,75,120].
Regarding claim 3, Chang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim1, wherein the determining the BV for the chroma component further comprises:
setting the determined BV for the luma component as a starting BV of a search region for the chroma component (i.e. The initial motion vector may define a search area, also called search range, within a reference picture. This would be the chroma component) [26,81-85,95];
determining a plurality of candidate BVs in the search region (i.e. MVs are determined in the search area) [26,81-85,95];
determining a template matching cost between a template of the chroma component of the current block and a template of each of the plurality of candidate BVs (i.e. cost C of template matching calculated using template and candidates) [26,81-85,95]; and
determining the BV for the chroma component as one of the plurality of candidate BVs that corresponds to a minimum template matching cost of the template matching costs between the template of the chroma component and the templates of the plurality of candidate BVs (i.e. using the calculated cost, a MV is decided and used) [26,81-85,95].
Regarding claim 4, Chang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 3, wherein the determining the starting BV for the chroma component further comprises: determining that the starting BV for the chroma component is scaled from the determined BV for the luma component according to a chroma downsampling format (i.e. 8 taps used for luma and 4 used for chroma) [84-85].
Regarding claim 5, Chang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the coded information indicates whether the intraTMP mode is applied to the luma component or the chroma component when the luma component and the chroma component are in a dual tree structure (i.e. binary tree BT, triple tree, and quad tree used for coding the luma and chroma components) [53-54].
Regarding claim 6, Chang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein the coded information indicates whether the intraTMP mode is applied to both the luma component and the chroma component of the current block when the luma component and the chroma component are in a single tree structure (i.e. luma and chroma can use a single QTBT or MTT structure) [57].
Regarding claim 11, Chang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: when the coded information indicates that the intraTMP mode is applied to the current block, determining intraTMP information associated with the intraTMP mode, the intraTMP information including a width of the current block and a height of the current block (i.e. CTU height specified by syntax elements) [60].
Claim 14 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1. The is the encoder of claim 1. Corresponding encoder structure shown in Fig. 2 of Chang.
Claim 15 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim 17 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 4.
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 6.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 14.
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 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) 7-10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Gao US 20210152833.
Regarding claim 7, Chang do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein: the video bitstream further includes first syntax information that indicates whether the current block is coded in an intra block copy (IBC) mode, and the coded information indicates whether the intraTMP mode is applied to the current block when the first syntax information indicates that the current block is coded in the IBC mode.
However, in the same field of endeavor Gao discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein: the video bitstream further includes first syntax information that indicates whether the current block is coded in an intra block copy (IBC) mode, and the coded information indicates whether the intraTMP mode is applied to the current block when the first syntax information indicates that the current block is coded in the IBC mode (i.e. IBC mode signaled with a flag) [272].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Chang with Gao to have the video bitstream further includes first syntax information that indicates whether the current block is coded in an intra block copy (IBC) mode, and the coded information indicates whether the intraTMP mode is applied to the current block when the first syntax information indicates that the current block is coded in the IBC mode.
It would be advantageous because "[0329] One benefit of embodiment 1 is that it removes all block vector validation bitstream conformance constraints. This embodiment increases the robustness of the coded bitstream. Besides, the embodiment initializes the dedicated IBC buffer. Undefined samples are avoided.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Chang with Gao to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Gao meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 7, further comprising: when the coded information indicates that the intraTMP mode is not applied to the current block, determining merge data of the IBC mode that is included in the video bitstream (i.e. IBC mode signaled with a flag (intraTMP not applied), merge candidate list (merge data) indicated by index in bitstream.) [272-273].
Regarding claim 9, Gao meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 7, wherein: the video bitstream further includes second syntax information that indicates whether merge data of the IBC mode is included in the video bitstream, and the method further comprises: when the coded information indicates that the intraTMP mode is not applied to the current block, determining whether the second syntax information indicates that the merge data of the IBC mode is included in the video bitstream; and determining the merge data of the IBC mode from the video bitstream when the second syntax information indicates that the merge data of the IBC mode is included in the video bitstream (i.e. IBC mode signaled with a flag (intraTMP not applied), merge candidate list (merge data) indicated by index (second syntax) in bitstream.) [272-273].
Regarding claim 10, Gao meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, wherein: the video bitstream further includes third syntax information that indicates whether the current block is coded in an intra block copy (IBC) mode or the intraTMP mode (i.e. IBC mode signaled with a flag (intraTMP not applied), merge candidate list (merge data) indicated by index (second syntax) in bitstream.) [272-273], and the coded information indicates whether the intraTMP mode is applied to the current block when the third syntax information indicates that the current block is coded in the IBC mode or the intraTMP mode (i.e. IBC mode signaled with a flag (intraTMP not applied), merge candidate list (merge data) indicated by index (second syntax) in bitstream.) [272-273].
Regarding claim 12, Chang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the prediction block of the current block based on the intraTMP mode when the coded information indicates that the intraTMP mode is applied to the current block (i.e. TM refinement performed. TM cost can reorder the candidates. This is based on cost to determine the coded information) [30,53-54,59,85,122,167]; and
Chang do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
determining that a merge candidate list of the current block includes the prediction block and one or more IBC candidates.
However, in the same field of endeavor Gao discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
determining that a merge candidate list of the current block includes the prediction block and one or more IBC candidates (i.e. IBC mode signaled with a flag (intraTMP not applied), merge candidate list (merge data) indicated by index (second syntax) in bitstream.) [272-273, Gao].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Chang with Gao to determine that a merge candidate list of the current block includes the prediction block and one or more IBC candidates.
It would be advantageous because "[0329] One benefit of embodiment 1 is that it removes all block vector validation bitstream conformance constraints. This embodiment increases the robustness of the coded bitstream. Besides, the embodiment initializes the dedicated IBC buffer. Undefined samples are avoided.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Chang with Gao to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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