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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because the acronym ‘CCIP-PDPC’ is used without spelling out in full at its first occurrence in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation “CCIP-PDPC” renders the claim indefinite, as the term is not defined in the specification and its meaning cannot be determined with reasonable certainty from the claim language or the associated description. In particular, it is unclear what “CCIP” denotes, and thus unclear which prediction or filtering process is encompassed by “CCIP-PDPC.” Accordingly, a person skilled in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claimed limitation with reasonable certainty.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by Saxena et al. (US20150016516A1), hereinafter referred to as Saxena.
Regarding claim 1, Saxena discloses method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, a content type of the current video unit based on values of samples associated with the current video unit (See ¶¶ [0090] and [0105] disclosing the current video unit as a current PU or block, the associated samples as neighboring top or left samples, and the determined content type as screen content ); and
performing the conversion based on the content type (See ¶¶ [0105] and [0111] disclosing performing video coding using a prediction method selected based on the detected content type).
Regarding claim 2, Saxena discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Saxena discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the samples associated with the current video unit are within the current video unit or neighboring to the current video unit, or wherein the current video unit comprises one of the following: a block, a subblock, a coding unit (CU), a prediction unit (PU), a transform unit (TU), a tile, a slice, or a subpicture (See ¶[0090]: “the current PU 805”; ¶[0103]: “the neighboring samples to A and B from the top row (or corresponding left column…)”; ¶[0105]: “the current block.”).
Regarding claim 6, Saxena discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Saxena discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the samples associated with the current video unit comprise reconstruction samples neighboring to the current video unit (See ¶¶[0043], [0090], and [0105], disclosing that the samples used for the sample-derived content determination are reconstructed reference samples from already reconstructed blocks located above or to the left of the current PU).
Regarding claim 14, Saxena discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Saxena discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the content type of the current video unit is determined based on one of the following: colors of the samples, luminance of the samples, intensity of the samples, a histogram of colors of the samples, a histogram of luminance of the samples, or
a histogram of intensity of the samples (See ¶[0105]: “create a histogram of the intensity values of the pixel samples from the top row”).
Regarding claim 16, Saxena discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Saxena discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video unit into the bitstream (See ¶ [0111]: “ [a]t encoder side, both the bilinear interpolation and the non-interpolation methods are tested for each mode).
Regarding claim 17, Saxena discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Saxena discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video unit from the bitstream (See ¶ [0142]: “ the decoder determines a type of content. The decoder can apply the value of the nearest reference neighboring sample to the pixel as the predictor in response to the type of content being screen content” and ¶ [0151]: “the decoder calculates a variance of reference samples above or left to current block” ).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of an apparatus for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Saxena discloses an apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor (See ¶¶ [0010] and [0041])
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Furthermore, Saxena discloses a n apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor (See ¶¶ [0010] and [0041])
Regarding claims 20, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by the feature encoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. 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 non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“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 “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing data and is anticipated by Saxena which recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (See ¶¶ [0010] and [0041])
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena, in view of Chen et al. (US20210368166A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 3, Saxena discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the samples associated with the current video unit comprise prediction samples of the current video unit, or wherein the samples associated with the current video unit comprise prediction samples neighboring to the current video unit.
However, Chen from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the samples associated with the current video unit comprise prediction samples of the current video unit, or wherein the samples associated with the current video unit comprise prediction samples neighboring to the current video unit (See ¶[0060]: “The mode information used as basis for the pre-defined criterion includes … predictor sample values.” Chen further processes a “current block” and classifies that block using the criterion).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Saxena to add the teachings of Chen as above, in order to add a decision rule that chooses between BDOF and DMVR when a current block could qualify for both. The block is classified using mode information and a predefined criterion, then only one of the two tools is applied (See Chen, ¶¶ [0014] and [0057]-[0060]). This avoids the latency of running both tools on the same block while preserving a path to use whichever tool is more suitable. Additional rules further refine when DMVR is disabled or when BDOF is newly enabled (See Chen, ¶¶ [0015]-[0017], [0058]-[0060] and [0077]-[0084])
Regarding claim 4, Saxena and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the prediction samples comprise one of the following: prediction samples before overlap subblock based motion compensation (OBMC) blending, prediction samples before OBMC fusion, prediction samples before OBMC weighting, prediction samples before multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP) blending, prediction samples before MHP fusion, prediction samples before MHP weighting, prediction samples before bi-prediction with CU-level weight (BCW) blending, prediction samples before BCW fusion, prediction samples before BCW weighting, prediction samples before combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) blending, prediction samples before CIIP fusion, prediction samples before CIIP weighting, prediction samples before geometric partitioning mode (GPM) blending, prediction samples before GPM fusion, prediction samples before GPM weighting, prediction samples before spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM) blending, prediction samples before SGPM fusion, prediction samples before SGPM weighting, prediction samples before bi-directional blending, prediction samples before bi-directional fusion, prediction samples before bi-directional weighting, prediction samples before a prediction sample refinement process, or prediction samples before a sample filtering process
However, Chen from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the prediction samples comprise one of the following: prediction samples before overlap subblock based motion compensation (OBMC) blending, prediction samples before OBMC fusion, prediction samples before OBMC weighting, prediction samples before multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP) blending, prediction samples before MHP fusion, prediction samples before MHP weighting, prediction samples before bi-prediction with CU-level weight (BCW) blending, prediction samples before BCW fusion, prediction samples before BCW weighting, prediction samples before combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) blending, prediction samples before CIIP fusion, prediction samples before CIIP weighting, prediction samples before geometric partitioning mode (GPM) blending, prediction samples before GPM fusion, prediction samples before GPM weighting, prediction samples before spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM) blending, prediction samples before SGPM fusion, prediction samples before SGPM weighting, prediction samples before bi-directional blending, prediction samples before bi-directional fusion, prediction samples before bi-directional weighting, prediction samples before a prediction sample refinement process, or prediction samples before a sample filtering process (See ¶[0060] identifying the “predictor sample values” as a criterion. Chen’s BDOF and DMVR determination is made before applying either refinement; ¶[0058] states that the process “may apply either DMVR or BDOF, but not both, on the current block using the classification result.” Therefore, predictor values used for the classification necessarily precede application of BDOF/DMVR and final bi-prediction refinement.).
The motivation for combining Saxena and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 5, Saxena and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 4, wherein the prediction sample refinement process comprises one of the following: a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), a prediction refinement with optical flow (PROF), a local illumination compensation (LIC), or an OBMC, or wherein the sample filtering process comprises one of the following: a position dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC), a CCIP-PDPC, a gradient-PDPC, reference sample filtering, reference sample smoothing, prediction sample filtering, or prediction sample smoothing.
However, Chen from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the prediction sample refinement process comprises one of the following: a bi-directional optical flow (BDOF), a prediction refinement with optical flow (PROF), a local illumination compensation (LIC), or an OBMC, or wherein the sample filtering process comprises one of the following: a position dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC), a CCIP-PDPC, a gradient-PDPC, reference sample filtering, reference sample smoothing, prediction sample filtering, or prediction sample smoothing (See ¶[0058]: “classify the current block into one of two pre-defined classes, namely, DMVR class and BDOF class” and “apply either DMVR or BDOF, but not both”).
The motivation for combining Saxena and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena, in view of Zhang et al. (US20230231998A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Regarding claim 7, Saxena discloses all the limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the reconstruction samples comprise reconstruction samples before a sample filtering process.
However, Zhang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses method of claim 6, wherein the reconstruction samples comprise reconstruction samples before a sample filtering process (See ¶¶[0158] and [0159]: “[t]he The input of DB is the reconstructed samples after DB and SAO. The sample classification and filtering process are based on the reconstructed samples after DB and SAO.” It further discloses selecting one of 25 ALF filters for each block based on the direction and activity of local gradients).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Saxena to add the teachings of Zhang as above, in order to provide better compression efficiency and simpler implementations of coding or decoding tools (Zhang, [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Saxena and Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 7, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 7, wherein the sample filtering process comprises one of the following:
a bilateral filtering, a deblocking, a neural-network-based filtering, a luma mapping with chroma scaling (LMCS), a sample adaptive offset (SAO), a cross-component SAO (CCSAO), an adaptive loop filter (ALF), a cross-component ALF (CCALF), or a motion compensation based temporal filtering.
However, Zhang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the sample filtering process comprises one of the following:
a bilateral filtering, a deblocking, a neural-network-based filtering, a luma mapping with chroma scaling (LMCS), a sample adaptive offset (SAO), a cross-component SAO (CCSAO), an adaptive loop filter (ALF), a cross-component ALF (CCALF), or a motion compensation based temporal filtering (See ¶[0159]: “a geometry transformation-based adaptive loop filter (GALF) with block-based filter adaption is applied. For the luma component, one among 25 filters is selected for each 2×2 block, based on the direction and activity of local gradients.” GALF is an adaptive loop filter and therefore discloses the recited ALF).
The motivation for combining Saxena and Zhang has been discussed in connection with claim 7, above.
Regarding claim 9, Saxena and Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the samples associated with the current video unit are obtained based on a subsampling process
However, Zhang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the samples associated with the current video unit are obtained based on a subsampling process (See ¶¶[0197] and [0198]: “in some embodiments, sub-sampled Laplacian calculation method for ALF classification is utilized” and “1:2 subsampling is utilized.” ¶ [0198] identifies the subsampled positions for the vertical, horizontal, and diagonal gradient calculations.).
The motivation for combining Saxena and Zhang has been discussed in connection with claim 7, above.
Regarding claim 10, Saxena and Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 9, wherein a subsampling factor used in the subsampling process is predetermined, or the subsampling factor is determined based on one of the following: a width of the current video unit, a height of the current video unit, a width of a video unit neighboring to the current video unit, or a height of the video unit neighboring to the current video unit.
However, Zhang from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 9, wherein a subsampling factor used in the subsampling process is predetermined, or the subsampling factor is determined based on one of the following: a width of the current video unit, a height of the current video unit, a width of a video unit neighboring to the current video unit, or a height of the video unit neighboring to the current video unit (See ¶[0197]: “there is no need to calculate the horizontal/vertical/45 diagonal/135 degree gradients for each sample within one block. Instead, 1:2 subsampling is utilized.” The fixed 1:2 relationship is a predetermined subsampling factor).
The motivation for combining Saxena and Zhang has been discussed in connection with claim 7, above.
Claims 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saxena, in view of Cao et al. (US20220394269A1), hereinafter referred to as Cao
Regarding claim 11, Saxena discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose method of claim 1, wherein the content type of the current video unit is determined based on one of the following: gradients of the samples, directions of the samples, angles of the samples, a histogram of gradients of the samples, a histogram of directions of the samples, or a histogram of angles of the samples.
However, Cao from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the content type of the current video unit is determined based on one of the following: gradients of the samples, directions of the samples, angles of the samples, a histogram of gradients of the samples, a histogram of directions of the samples, or a histogram of angles of the samples (See ¶[0071]: “[t]he DIMD coding mode is derived with the help of a Histogram of Gradient (HoG). The HoG may be a vector of some predetermined length (e.g., 67). Each element in the HoG corresponds to a different direction and denotes a magnitude of the corresponding direction. The HoG is expressly a histogram derived from gradient directions and corresponding magnitudes for the current CU).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Saxena to add the teachings of Cao as above, in order to improve coding efficiency and performance of intra prediction in a video coding specification, such as in an enhanced compression model (ECM) beyond Versatile Video Coding (VVC) (Cao, [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Saxena and Cao disclose all the limitations of claim 11, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 11, wherein the histogram of gradients, the histogram of directions, or the histogram of angles is determined based on a result of counting gradients along one or more directions or angles, or wherein the histogram of gradients, the histogram of directions, or the histogram of angles is determined based on dividing an entire range of directions or angles into a series of intervals or bins, or wherein the histogram of gradients, the histogram of directions, or the histogram of angles is determined based on a result of counting gradients or amplitudes of the gradients in each interval or each bin or each direction or each angle..
However, Cao from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the histogram of gradients, the histogram of directions, or the histogram of angles is determined based on a result of counting gradients along one or more directions or angles, or wherein the histogram of gradients, the histogram of directions, or the histogram of angles is determined based on dividing an entire range of directions or angles into a series of intervals or bins, or wherein the histogram of gradients, the histogram of directions, or the histogram of angles is determined based on a result of counting gradients or amplitudes of the gradients in each interval or each bin or each direction or each angle (See ¶¶[0071]-[0073]: the video coder analyzes overlapping 3×3 windows, determines “which intra prediction mode best characterizes the samples in the window,” and “increment[s] the element in the HoG corresponding to the determined intra prediction mode.” Each HoG element corresponds to a direction and denotes its magnitude).
The motivation for combining Saxena and Cao has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above.
Regarding claim 13, Saxena and Cao disclose all the limitations of claim 12, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 12, wherein the one or more directions or angles are predetermined, or the one or more directions or angles are determined based on one or more directions of intra prediction angular modes, or wherein for a direction or an angle, a gradient amplitude is determined based on a result of counting gradients or amplitudes of the gradients of at least one sample in a region.
However, Cao from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 12, wherein the one or more directions or angles are predetermined, or the one or more directions or angles are determined based on one or more directions of intra prediction angular modes, or wherein for a direction or an angle, a gradient amplitude is determined based on a result of counting gradients or amplitudes of the gradients of at least one sample in a region (See ¶¶[0071] and [0072]:“the HoG creates a cue for possible angular intra prediction modes,” and “first two angular intra prediction modes from HoG with the two highest magnitudes are fused with planar mode as the final prediction from DIM”).
The motivation for combining Saxena and Cao has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above.
Regarding claim 15, Saxena and Cao disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Saxena does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the content type of the current video unit is determined based on at least one of the following: the number of main gradients of the samples, the number of main directions of the samples, the number of main angles of the samples, the number of main colors of the samples, the number of main luminance of the samples, or the number of main intensity of the samples.
However, Cao from the same or similar endeavor of image processing discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the content type of the current video unit is determined based on at least one of the following: the number of main gradients of the samples, the number of main directions of the samples, the number of main angles of the samples, the number of main colors of the samples, the number of main luminance of the samples, or the number of main intensity of the samples (See ¶¶[0072] and [0073]: “[t]he first two angular intra prediction modes from HoG with the two highest magnitudes are fused with planar mode as the final prediction from DIMD,” and mode1 and mode2 are defined as the angular intra-prediction modes having the highest and second-highest magnitudes in the HoG).
The motivation for combining Saxena and Cao has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (EST).
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights