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 .
Following is a list of prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, including prior arts not relied upon in the rejection
US 20250386012 A1 (hereinafter Wang)
US 20210344929 A1 (hereinafter Choi)
US 20200351506 A1 (hereinafter Rath)
US 20140328413 A1 (hereinafter Esenlik)
US 20220166968 A1
US 20210120240 A1
US 20250330590 A1
S. Matsuo, Seishi Takamura and Yoshiyuki Yashima, "Intra prediction with spatial gradients and multiple reference lines," 2009 Picture Coding Symposium, Chicago, IL, USA, 2009, pp. 1-4, doi: 10.1109/PCS.2009.5167430.
Claim Objection (Allowable Subject Matter)
Claims 12-13 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.
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)(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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang
Regarding Claim 20: This is a product by process claim. 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.
“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 medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in the claim merely provide a support for the storage of the bitstream and have no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the claim scope is just a non-transitory computer readable storage medium capable of storing data.
If the specification supports, the claim can be amended to recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer executable program, when the program is executed by a processor…….. performing the steps .
Therefore, the claim scope is taught by Wang paragraph 704 and Fig.1.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Choi.
Regarding Claim 1. Wang teaches 1. a method of video decoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a video bitstream comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block:
for each reference line of a plurality of reference lines for the current block [(Fig. 46 )]: identifying a [(para 403 )]: and identifying a respective set of intra prediction modes by performing a gradient-based intra mode derivation on the respective reference area: [(para 403; gradient-based in taught in para 459 as a part of coding tools {see para 424}; also see para 473 )] populating a list of intra mode and reference line combinations using respective intra prediction modes from each respective set of intra prediction modes and a respective reference area according to a corresponding reference line: [(para 405 )] selecting an intra prediction mode and a reference line from the list of intra mode and reference line combinations: [(para 405 )] and decoding the current block using the intra prediction mode. [(Fig.3 )]
Wang does not explicitly show identifying a respective reference area corresponding to the reference line
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Choi teaches identifying a respective reference area corresponding to the reference line [(Choi para 15 )]
Choi also teaches determining gradient [(Choi para 17 )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities. In these case both prior art is describing techniques of multi-reference line intra prediction techniques, therefore the details provided in Choi can be incorporated into Wang as the functionalities remain the same.
Wang and/or Choi additionally teaches additional limitations of following claims, as follows:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the current block is a chroma block. [(Wang para 113 Choi para 317 )]
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the list of intra mode and reference line combinations further comprises one or more intra prediction modes identified without performing any gradient-based intra mode derivation. [(Wang para 424-458 )]
4. The method of claim 1, wherein selecting respective intra prediction modes from each respective set of intra prediction modes comprises selecting five intra prediction modes. [(Wang para 399 there are 5 lines so one selected from each line; also see para 400 )]
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising sorting each respective set of intra prediction modes prior to selecting the respective intra prediction modes. [(Wang para 403 )]
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the sorting is performed based on an associated cost. [(Wang para 403 )]
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of reference lines consists of three reference lines. [(Choi Fig. 24, para 357 )]
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the three reference lines are non-adjacent. [(Wang para 399 non-adjacent lines; Choi Fig. 24, para 357 three lines )]
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the list of intra mode and reference line combinations has a predefined size. [(Wang para 403, 399 )]
10. The method of claim 1, wherein two or more respective reference areas for two or more reference lines have varying shapes. [(Wang para 422; Fig.46 different line has different length Choi Fig.24 )]
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the respective reference area has a dimension that is double a corresponding dimension of the current block. [(Wang Fig.7. Fig.46 )]
19. A method of video encoding performed at a computing system having memory and one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving video data comprising a plurality of blocks, including a current block: for each reference line of a plurality of reference lines for the current block: identifying a respective reference area corresponding to the reference line: and identifying a respective set of intra prediction modes by performing a gradient-based intra mode derivation on the respective reference area: populating a list of intra mode and reference line combinations using respective intra prediction modes from each respective set of intra prediction modes and a respective reference area according to a corresponding reference line: selecting an intra prediction mode and a reference line from the list of intra mode and reference line combinations: and encoding the current block using the intra prediction mode. [(see analysis of claim 1 and note Wang describes both for decoding and encoding )]
Claims 14, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Choi in view of Rath.
Regarding Claim 14. Wang in view of Choi does not explicitly show performing the gradient-based intra mode derivation comprises applying an edge filter to samples of the reference area
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Rath teaches performing a gradient-based intra mode derivation comprises applying an edge filter to samples of the reference area [(Rath see the title ; boundary/edge filtering for reference sample in intra mode for gradient based intra prediction {para 18, 69, 121 )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities as Wang shows gradient-based intra mode derivation and Choi teaches edge filtering in intra prediction to improve samples.
Rath additionally teaches additional limitations of following claims, as follows:
16. The method of claim 14, wherein the edge filter is applied when a non-conventional intra prediction mode is used for the current block. [(Rath para 121, 123 )]
17. The method of claim 14, wherein the edge filter is selectively applied based on coding information. [(Rath para 121, 123 )]
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the coding information comprises one or more of a block size and a prediction mode. [(Rath para 121, 123 )]
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Choi in view of Rath in view of Esenlik.
Regarding Claim 15. Wang in view of Choi in view of Rath does not explicitly show window for edge filter is determined based on coding information.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Esenlik teaches window for filter is determined based on coding information. [(Esenlik para 136 )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would improve coding efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights