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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/16/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 18-20 of co-pending Application No. 19/327,814 (reference application).
Instant application 19/271,490
Claim 1
Co-pending Application 19/327,814
Claim 1
A method for video processing, comprising:
A method for video processing, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, information regarding applying a sample blending scheme to a boundary of the current video unit
obtaining, for a conversion between a current video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, first information regarding whether to enable a coding scheme for the current video unit, the first information being determined based on at least one of the following:
based on a type or a characteristic of the boundary; and
a video content type of the current video unit, a type of a boundary of the current video unit, gradient information associated with the current video unit, or coding mode information of a neighboring video unit of the current video unit; and
performing the conversion based on the information.
performing the conversion based on the first information.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because while the instant application includes a sample blending scheme as opposed to a generic coding scheme, a sample blending scheme is considered a coding scheme to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Clams 18-20 of the instant application are rejected over claims 18-20 of the co-pending application for the reasons listed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 4, 6, and 8 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 4 recites the limitation "the fusion based scheme". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the samples". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “around” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin et al. US 2020/0021845 A1, hereafter Lin.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses a method for video processing (method and apparatus of constrained overlapping block motion compensation in video coding) [title], comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a current video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video (encoding or decoding the current block) [claim 1], information regarding applying a sample blending scheme (it uses the MV of the above block to generate an OBMC block A and uses the MV of the left block to generate an OBMC block L. the predictors of OBMC block A and OBMC block L are blended with the current predictors) [0014] to a boundary of the current video unit (whether OBMC is applied to a current block is decided according to information of the current block or information of neighboring blocks) [0040] based on a type or a characteristic of the boundary (the information can be any characteristics of the neighboring block, such as…Inter direction…or MV difference (i.e. the difference between a neighboring MV and the current MV) of the current blocks, or any combination of the above) [0040]; and
performing the conversion based on the information (encoding or decoding the current block using an overlapped-boundary predictor comprising the combined predictor) [claim 1].
Regarding claim 2, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the information comprises at least one of the following: whether to apply the sample blending scheme to the boundary (whether OBMC is applied to a current block is decided according to information of the current block or information of neighboring blocks) [0040], or how to apply the sample blending scheme to the boundary.
Regarding claim 3, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the boundary comprises at least one of the following:
a left boundary of the current video unit, an above boundary of the current video unit, or a partitioning boundary within the current video unit for partitioning the current video unit (it uses the MV of the above block to generate an OBMC block A and uses the MV of the left block to generate an OBMC block L. the predictors of OBMC block A and OBMC block L are blended with the current predictors) [0014], or
wherein the sample blending scheme comprises at least one of the following: an overlap subblock based motion compensation (OBMC), a spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM), a geometric partitioning mode (GPM), a combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP), a multi-hypothesis prediction (MHP), or
wherein the sample blending scheme comprises a fusion based scheme.
Regarding claim 5, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the type or the characteristic of the boundary (the information can be any characteristics of the neighboring block, such as…Inter direction…or MV difference (i.e. the difference between a neighboring MV and the current MV) of the current blocks, or any combination of the above) [0040] is determined based on samples associated with the boundary (it uses the MV of the above block to generate an OBMC block A and uses the MV of the left block to generate an OBMC block L. the predictors of OBMC block A and OBMC block L are blended with the current predictors) [0014].
Regarding claim 6, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 5 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the samples are around or adjacent to the boundary (it uses the MV of the above block to generate an OBMC block A and uses the MV of the left block to generate an OBMC block L. the predictors of OBMC block A and OBMC block L are blended with the current predictors) [0014].
Regarding claim 7, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 5 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the samples comprise prediction samples before blending or reference samples of a reference video unit for the current video unit (it uses the MV of the above block to generate an OBMC block A and uses the MV of the left block to generate an OBMC block L. the predictors of OBMC block A and OBMC block L are blended with the current predictors) [0014].
Regarding claim 9, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the type or the characteristic of the boundary is determined based on difference between at least one pair of samples, a sample in each pair of samples is on one side of the boundary and a further sample in each pair of samples is on a further side of the boundary (the information can be any characteristics of the neighboring block, such as…Inter direction…or MV difference (i.e. the difference between a neighboring MV and the current MV) of the current blocks, or any combination of the above) [0040].
Regarding claim 10, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 9 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the at least one pair of samples comprises more than one pair of samples, and differences between each of the more than one pair of samples are accumulated (the information can be any characteristics of the neighboring block, such as…Inter direction…or MV difference (i.e. the difference between a neighboring MV and the current MV) of the current blocks, or any combination of the above) [0040].
Regarding claim 11, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses if the type of the boundary is a first type, the sample blending scheme is not applied to the boundary (whether OBMC is applied to a current block is decided according to information of the current block or information of neighboring blocks) [0040].
Regarding claim 15, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses whether to apply a coding tool to the current video unit is determined based on one of the following: types of a plurality of boundaries associated with the current video unit, or information regarding whether a sample blending scheme is applied to the current video unit (whether OBMC is applied to a current block is decided according to information of the current block or information of neighboring blocks) [0040].
Regarding claim 16, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the conversion includes encoding the current video unit into the bitstream (encoding or decoding the current block) [claim 1].
Regarding claim 17, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the conversion includes decoding the current video unit from the bitstream (encoding or decoding the current block) [claim 1].
Regarding claim 18, the claim is drawn to an apparatus adapted to implement the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite a processor and a non-transitory memory, which Liu also teaches (processor…computer-readable non-transitory storage medium) [0006].
Regarding claim 19, non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim 19 is drawn to the instructions corresponding to the method of claim 1. However, the claims also recite a processor and a non-transitory memory, which Liu also teaches (processor…computer-readable non-transitory storage medium) [0006].
Regarding claim 20, non-transitory computer readable recording medium claim 19 is drawn to the instructions corresponding to the method of claim 1. However, the claims also recite a processor and a non-transitory memory, which Liu also teaches (processor…computer-readable non-transitory storage medium) [0006].
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 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.
Claims 4, 8, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin in view of Kim et al. US 2025/0039400 A1, hereafter Kim.
Regarding claim 4, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Lin fails to explicitly disclose the fusion based scheme comprises at least one of the following: a decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) blending, a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) blending, an intra luma fusion, an intra chroma fusion, or an intraTMP fusion.
Kim, in an analogous environment, discloses the fusion based scheme comprises at least one of the following: a decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) blending (decoder side intra mode derivation (DIMD) [0132], a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) blending ((TIMD)) [0131], an intra luma fusion, an intra chroma fusion, or an intraTMP fusion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use various fusion based schemes, as disclosed by Kim, with the invention disclosed by Lin, the motivation being increase efficiency [0003].
Regarding claim 8, Lin and Kim address all of the features with respect to claim 4 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the type or the characteristic of the boundary is determined based on at least one of the following: gradients of the samples, directions of the samples (inter direction) [0040], angles of the samples (MV difference) [0040], colors of the samples (channel type (i.e., luma or chroma) of current block) [0043], luminance of the samples (channel type (i.e., luma or chroma) of current block) [0043], or intensities of the samples.
Regarding claim 12, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 11 as outlined above.
However, Lin fails to explicitly disclose the first type is screen content, and the sample blending scheme comprises an OBMC.
Kim, in an analogous environment, discloses the first type is screen content, and the sample blending scheme comprises an OBMC (when an encoding mode of the current block is one of an intra mode, an IBC mode, a TMP mode, an LIC mode, and a BCW mode, OBMC may not be applied to the current block {instant specification designated these modes as screen content coding tools}) [0183].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the screen content tools, as disclosed by Kim, with the invention disclosed by Lin, the motivation being increase efficiency [0003].
Regarding claim 13, Lin addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Lin fails to explicitly disclose information regarding applying a sample blending scheme to the current video unit is determined based on at least one of the following: reference samples in a reference frame for the current video unit, or a reference video unit in the reference frame.
Kim, in an analogous environment, discloses information regarding applying a sample blending scheme to the current video unit is determined based on at least one of the following: reference samples in a reference frame for the current video unit, or a reference video unit in the reference frame (reference sample; the intra prediction unit 252 predicts the sample values of the current block by using the reconstructed samples located on the left and/or upper side of the current block as reference samples…reconstructed samples, reference samples, and samples of the current block may represent pixels…samples values may represent pixel values) [FIG. 5; 0067].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reference samples, as disclosed by Kim, with the invention disclosed by Lin, the motivation being increase efficiency [0003].
Regarding claim 14, Lin and Kim address all of the features with respect to claim 13 as outlined above.
Lin further discloses the information comprises at least one of the following: whether to apply the sample blending scheme to the current video unit, how to apply the sample blending scheme to the current video unit, whether to apply the sample blending scheme to a boundary of the current video unit, or how to apply the sample blending scheme to the boundary (whether OBMC is applied to a current block is decided according to information of the current block or information of neighboring blocks) [0040].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chen et al. US 2023/0034458 A1 discloses geometric partition mode with intra block copy for coding unit boundaries. Xiu et al. US 2022/0272375 A1 discloses overlapped block motion compensation for inter prediction including OBMC.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights