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 § 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 10-19 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. In particular, the claim 10, which claims 11-19 depend on, refers to “the prediction parameter” without previously disclosing any prediction parameter, which renders the initially claimed “the prediction parameter of the current block” indefinite. for the purposes of examination, the initially claimed “the prediction parameter of the current block” will be interpreted as “a prediction parameter of the current block”
Additionally, claims 6,9,16, and 19 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. In particular, the claims appear to refer to undefined abbreviations which do not hold any clear or direct meaning. At best, review the specification to understand the particular abbreviations provides some clarity such as at ¶101 and of the published PG-PUB (US 20250343899 A1) of the instant application, but these explanations cannot be read into the claimed invention. Additionally, although the abbreviations for limitations such as “OBMC”, “MHP”, and “SGPM” disclosed in the specification, they are not defined or given more description within the specification of the instant application. Until the applicant addresses the specific meaning of the claimed abbreviations, the claimed limitations such as “OBMC”, “MHP”, “SGPM”, (of claims 7 and 16) “MSE”, “SATD”, “SAD”, “MAD”, “MAE”, “NCC”, and “SSE” (of claims 9 and 19) cannot be given clear patentable weight and are indefinite. however, for the purposes of examination, the claimed “MSE”, “SATD”, “SAD”, “MAD”, “MAE”, “NCC”, and “SSE” will be interpreted as follows: “MSE” will be interpreted as “mean square error (MSE)”, “SATD” will be interpreted as “sum of absolute transformed difference (SATD)”, “SAD” will be interpreted as “sum of absolute difference (SAD)”, “MAD” will be interpreted as “mean absolute difference (MAD)”, “MAE” will be interpreted as “mean absolute error (MAE)”, “NCC” will be interpreted as “normalized correlation coefficient (NCC)”, and “SSE” will be interpreted as “sum of square error (SSE)”
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.
Claim(s) 1-2,10-12,20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG; YU-CHIAO et al. (US 20220417501 A1) in view of TENG; CHIH-YU et al. (US 20240236308 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches,
An encoding method, applied to an encoder, (¶106, 43-45, fig. 1 and 6, “encoder module 114”, depicted in fig. 1 and 6, “configured to encode video data”) wherein the method comprises:
determining a template of a current block (¶128-130, intra candidate modes for “the block unit”) and one or more prediction templates (¶128-130, “generate a template prediction for each of the intra candidate modes”) of the template of the current block; (¶128-130, “generate a template prediction” for each of the intra candidate modes “of a plurality of neighboring regions for the block” based on reference region by using “each of the intra candidate modes”)
determining a weight of the one or more prediction templates (¶130 and 95-97, encoder module 114 where “template predictions may be directly weightedly combined” selected form predictions modes from intra prediction modes based on the template predictions which “determine a plurality of weighting parameters”) according to the template of the current block and the one or more prediction templates; (¶95-97 and 130, “determine a plurality of weighting parameters” based on “template predictions generated based on the template blocks” select from a “plurality of prediction modes from the intra candidate modes based on the template predictions”)
determining one or more first prediction blocks of the current block (¶131 and 128-129, “determine the prediction block” for the “block unit”) according to a prediction parameter of the current block; (¶131 and 129, “determine the prediction block based on the prediction modes” using each of the “intra candidate modes”)
But does not explicitly teach,
fusing the one or more first prediction blocks by using the weight of the one or more prediction templates to obtain a second prediction block of the current block.
However, Teng teaches additionally,
fusing the one or more first prediction blocks (¶198-199 and fig. 9, encoder module 114 may generate a weighting prediction based on “combination of the weighting prediction may be selected from multiple combined” intra candidate modes) by using the weight of the one or more prediction templates (¶198-199, weighting prediction based on “weighting parameters in the intra candidate modes” of the multiple intra candidate modes) to obtain a second prediction block of the current block. (¶198-199 and fig. 9, encoder module 114 may “generate a weighting prediction” that predicts the “block unit”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yang with the weighted prediction of Teng which expressly weights multiple prediction results to predict the block. This allows for more precise prediction of the target block.
Regarding claim 2, Yang with Teng teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Yang teaches additionally,
first prediction block of the current block (¶128-131, “generate a template prediction for each of the intra candidate modes” based on “plurality of neighboring regions for the block unit”) is determined according to an intra prediction mode (¶128-131, “template prediction for each of the intra candidate modes”) indicated by the prediction parameter. (¶131 and 129, “determine the prediction block based on the prediction modes” using each of the “intra candidate modes”)
Regarding claim 10, Yang also teaches,
A decoding method, applied to a decoder, (¶75 and fig. 1-2, “decoder module 124”, depicted in figs. 1-2, “decodes the block unit”) wherein the method comprises:
determining a template of a current block (¶89-97, “predict template blocks” using intra candidate modes for “the block unit”) and one or more prediction templates (¶89-97, “generate one of the template predictions” using the intra candidate modes) of the template of the current block; (¶89-97, “generate the template predictions” using the intra candidate modes “based on the reference region having the template references”)
determining a weight of the one or more prediction templates (¶95-97 and 89, “decoder module 124 may determine a plurality of weighting parameters”) according to the template of the current block (¶95-97,89, and 91, “template blocks in the template unit” reconstructed before reconstructing “the block unit”) and the one or more prediction templates; (¶95-97 and 89, “template predictions generated based on the template blocks” using the intra candidate modes to generate the template predictions)
determining one or more first prediction blocks of the current block (¶97, “decoder module 124 may predict the block unit”) according to the prediction parameter of the current block; (¶97, predict the block unit based on “the prediction modes to generate a plurality of predicted blocks”)
obtain a second prediction block of the current block; (¶99, “decoder module 124 may generate a plurality of intermediate predictions of the block unit”) and
determining a reconstructed value of the current block (¶101 and 99, “determine a plurality of cost values” used to select a “prediction block” from the intermediate prediction blocks of the “block unit” by “comparing the reconstructed template blocks with the intermediate predictions”) according to the second prediction block. (¶101 and 99, “plurality of intermediate predictions of the block unit”)
But does not explicitly teach,
fusing the one or more first prediction blocks by using the weight of the one or more prediction templates, to obtain a second prediction block of the current block;
However, Teng teaches additionally,
fusing the one or more first prediction blocks (¶198-199 and fig. 9, encoder module 114 may generate a weighting prediction based on “combination of the weighting prediction may be selected from multiple combined” intra candidate modes) by using the weight of the one or more prediction templates, (¶198-199, weighting prediction based on “weighting parameters in the intra candidate modes” of the multiple intra candidate modes) to obtain a second prediction block of the current block; (¶198-199 and fig. 9, encoder module 114 may “generate a weighting prediction” that predicts the “block unit”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yang with the weighted prediction of Teng which expressly weights multiple prediction results to predict the block. This allows for more precise prediction of the target block.
Regarding claim 11, Yang with Teng teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Yang teaches additionally,
decoding a bitstream to determine a residual block (¶105 and fig. 1-2, “residual components from the bitstream”) corresponding to the current block; (¶105 and fig. 1-2, “decoder module 124 may determine a plurality of residual components from the bitstream for the block unit”) and
determining the reconstructed value of the current block (¶105,101 and fig. 1-2, “add the residual components into the prediction block”, select from intermediate predictions, “to reconstruct the block unit”) according to the residual block (¶105, “residual component”) and the second prediction block. (¶105 and 101, add the residual components into “the prediction block” select from “intermediate predictions”)
Regarding claim 12, dependent on claim 10, it is the decoding method of encoding method claim 2, depending on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 2 to teach the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claim 20, Yang in view of Teng teaches the limitations of claim 1,
Yang teaches additionally,
A computer readable storage medium storing a computer program/instruction (¶48, “a device may store the program having instructions”) and a bitstream, (¶126, “picture buffer 6147 may be a reference picture memory that stores the reference block for use by the encoder module 614 to encode video”) wherein the computer program/instruction is executed by a processor to implement the encoding method (¶48, “encoder/decoder circuitry such as one or more microprocessors, a central processing unit (CPU)” executing the instructions in hardware using one or more processors) according to claim 1 to generate the bitstream. (¶123-126 and fig. 6, “picture buffer 6147 may be a reference picture memory that stores the reference block for use by the encoder module 614 to encode video” which provides to prediction process unit 6141 to encode bitstream)
Claim(s) 3-5,13-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG; YU-CHIAO et al. (US 20220417501 A1) in view of TENG; CHIH-YU et al. (US 20240236308 A1) in view of Filippov; Alexey Konstantinovich et al. (US 20230217016 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Yang with Teng teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 3,
However, Filippov teaches additionally,
predicting the template of the current block (¶141-147 and fig. 17, “derive an intra prediction mode for a current block 1702 using TIMD”) according to a candidate prediction mode in a mode list, (¶141,144, and fig. 17, derive an intra prediction mode “included in one or more MPM lists constructed for an intra prediction of the current block 1702”, where the MPM lists may be “adaptively generated for the current block 1702”) to obtain a candidate prediction template; (¶141-147,134, and fig. 17, derive an intra prediction mode for a current block 1702 using TIMD which is a “template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD)”) and
obtaining the prediction template (¶144 and 146, “generate a prediction of the left and top templates 1704A and 1704B” as the reference samples 902 were used to generate a prediction of the current block 904) according to a sample value error between the candidate prediction template and the template of the current block.(¶146 and 144, “ select an intra prediction mode from the applied intra prediction modes that results in the smallest prediction error” based on determined “prediction error” between “prediction samples determined for the intra prediction mode and the reconstructed samples of the left and top templates 1704A and 1704B” included in one or more MPM lists constructed for an intra prediction of the current block 1702)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yang with the weighted prediction of Teng with the template-based intra mode derivation of Filippov which selects prediction modes based on the smallest prediction error. This allows for mode derivation to provide more accurate prediction mode derivations.
Regarding claim 4, Yang with Teng with Filippov teaches the limitations of claim 3,
Filippov teaches additionally,
predicting the template of the current block (¶146 and 144, “generated prediction” for the plurality of intra prediction modes “generated for the current block 1702”) according to a sample value of a reference region of the template of the current block and the candidate prediction mode, (¶144 and 146, generated prediction of the “left and top templates 1704A and 1704B” comprising “intra prediction modes that are included in one or more MPM lists constructed for an intra prediction of the current block 1702”) to obtain the candidate prediction template, (¶146, “select an intra prediction mode from the applied intra prediction modes that results in the smallest prediction error for the left and top templates 1704A and 1704B”) wherein the reference region comprises a non-adjacent region and/or an adjacent region of the template of the current block. (¶148,156, and fig. 18, “samples of the current block 1702 is directly adjacent” and “not being directly adjacent” to CTU boundary 1802 as depicted in fig. 18)
Regarding claim 5, Yang with Teng with Filippov teaches the limitations of claim 4,
Filippov teaches additionally,
reference region comprises an upper left region, an upper region, an upper right region, a left region, and/or a lower left region of the template of the current block. (¶144,146 and fig. 17, “generate a prediction of the left and top templates 1704A and 1704B” for intra prediction modes “included in one or more MPM lists constructed for an intra prediction of the current block 1702” which includes the entire top 1704B and left 1704A template areas that correspond with the dimensions of the current block 1702 as depicted in fig. 17)
Regarding claim 13, dependent on claim 10, it is the method claim similar to method claim 3, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 3 to teach the limitations of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, dependent on claim 13, it is the method claim similar to method claim 4, dependent on claim 3. Refer to rejection of claim 4 to teach the limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, dependent on claim 14, it is the method claim similar to method claim 5, dependent on claim 4. Refer to rejection of claim 5 to teach the limitations of claim 15.
Claim(s) 6,16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG; YU-CHIAO et al. (US 20220417501 A1) in view of TENG; CHIH-YU et al. (US 20240236308 A1) in view of Xiu; Xiaoyu et al. (US 20200374513 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Yang with Teng teaches the limitations of claim 1,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 6,
However, Yang teaches additionally,
prediction template obtained by predicting the template of the current block by using an intermediate prediction mode (¶99, “generate a plurality of intermediate predictions of the block unit”)
But does not explicitly teach,
when a fusion operation is not performed in Chroma Fusion, OBMC, MHP, and/or SGPM methods.
However, Xiu teaches additionally,
using a intermediate prediction mode (¶94, “use the prediction signal”) when a fusion operation is not performed in Chroma Fusion, OBMC, MHP, and/or SGPM methods. (¶94, use “prediction samples”, generated from MCP and “OBMC” as template samples, with the prediction signal “of the spatial neighbors as the template samples for the current block”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yang with the weighted prediction of Teng with the template-based prediction of Xiu which uses prediction signals generated from MCP and OBMC of the spatial neighbors as template samples. This allows for improvements towards coding performance of template-based prediction.
Regarding claim 16, dependent on claim 10, it is the method claim similar to method claim 6, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 6 to teach the limitations of claim 16.
Claim(s) 7,9,17,19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG; YU-CHIAO et al. (US 20220417501 A1) in view of TENG; CHIH-YU et al. (US 20240236308 A1) in view of AUYEUNG; Cheung et al. (US 20220360769 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Yang with Teng teach the limitations of claim 1,
Yang teaches additionally,
determining a weight of the one or more prediction templates (¶95-97 and 89, “decoder module 124 may determine a plurality of weighting parameters”) according to the template of the current block (¶95-97,89, and 91, “template blocks in the template unit” reconstructed before reconstructing “the block unit”) and the one or more prediction templates, (¶95-97 and 89, “template predictions generated based on the template blocks” using the intra candidate modes to generate the template predictions) wherein the target prediction value is equal to a weighted sum of sample values of the one or more prediction templates. (¶97, “weightedly combine the predicted blocks to generate a prediction block of the block unit by the predicted blocks and the weighting parameters” for each predicted block so that each of the “predicted blocks also corresponds to one of the weighting parameters”)
But does not explicitly teach,
so as to minimize a sample value error between the template of the current block and a target prediction value of the template of the current block,
However, Auyeung teaches additionally,
determining weights so as to minimize a sample value error (¶160,172, and fig. 12, “weight parameters(s) are calculated to minimize the cost of the cost function”) between the template of the current block and a target prediction value of the template of the current block, (¶160,172, and fig. 12, “weights(s) determined to minimize a cost of a predefined” cost function based on “based on respective samples differences of the current template to a predicted current template”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yang with the weighted prediction of Teng with the weighting of Auyeung which minimizes cost. This allows for cost functions that can be determined by ordinary least squares with fixed-point arithmetic using Cramer’s rule.
Regarding claim 9, Yang with Teng with Auyeung teaches the limitations of claim 7,
Yang teaches additionally,
sample value error (¶93, “cost function”) is one of: MSE, SATD, SAD, MAD, MAE, NCC or SSE. (¶93, cost function includes “Sum of Absolute Difference (SAD), Sum of Absolute Transformed Difference (SATD), Mean Absolute Difference (MAD), Mean Squared Difference (MSD)”)
Regarding claim 17, dependent on claim 10, it is the method claim similar to method claim 7, dependent on claim 1. Refer to rejection of claim 7 to teach the limitations of claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, dependent on claim 17, it is the method claim similar to method claim 9, dependent on claim 7. Refer to rejection of claim 9 to teach the limitations of claim 19.
Claim(s) 8,18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANG; YU-CHIAO et al. (US 20220417501 A1) in view of TENG; CHIH-YU et al. (US 20240236308 A1) in view of AUYEUNG; Cheung et al. (US 20220360769 A1) in view of He; Yuwen et al. (US 20160065976 A1) in view of Kim; Sunyeon et al. (US 20120307895 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Yang with Teng with Auyeung teaches the limitations of claim 7,
But does not explicitly teach the additional limitations of claim 8,
However, He teaches additionally,
determining an autocorrelation the prediction template (¶122, “Cor(O) may be auto-correlation of O” which is an observation signal O) of according to the sample value of the prediction template; (¶122, “an observation signal O”)
determining a cross-correlation vector (¶122, “Cor (T, O) may be correlation between T and O”) between the prediction template and the template of the current block according to the sample value of the prediction template (¶122, Cor (T, O) may be correlation between T and O, with given target signal T and “observation signal O”) and a sample value of the template of the current block; (¶122, “target signal T”) and
determining the weight of the one or more prediction templates (¶122, “optimal weight maybe equal to Cor(T, O)/Cor(O)”) according to the autocorrelation (¶122, Cor(O) which “may be auto-correlation of O”) and the cross-correlation vector. (¶122, Cor(T, O) which “may be correlation between T and O”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yang with the weighted prediction of Teng with the weighting of Auyeung with the weigh determination of He which determines an optimal weight based off a cross correlation and auto correlation. This allows for a weight that can be more accurate and better the quality at the cost of signaling overhead of weights.
But does not explicitly teach,
autocorrelation matrix
However, Kim teaches additionally,
determining an autocorrelation matrix of the prediction template (¶61, “correlation matrix calculator 622 calculates an autocorrelation matrix for a set of the prediction errors”)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yang with the weighted prediction of Teng with the weighting of Auyeung with the weigh determination of He with the autocorrelation matrix of Kim which is collected for intra prediction. This allows for performance improvement while also achieving more excellent intra prediction encoding efficiency.
Regarding claim 18, dependent on claim 17, it is the method claim similar to method claim 8, dependent on claim 7. Refer to rejection of claim 8 to teach the limitations of claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7322. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10AM-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, Joseph G. Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/JOSEPH G USTARIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2483
/JIMMY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights