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 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble states: “wherein when the computer program is executed by a processor, following operations are implemented to generate the bitstream”. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner proposes adding “the” before “following operations.
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 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: a step generating a bitstream that is discussed in the preamble.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3,14-16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Ma US 20220368928.
Regarding claim 1, Ma meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A decoding method, applied to a decoder [fig. 313] and comprising:
determining a first template of a current block, and determining a matching template and a reference block (i.e. obtain template samples used to determine a prediction of a block) [20,43; fig. 13];
determining a model parameter according to the first template and the matching template (i.e. obtain linear model coefficients based on the template chroma sample and the template luma sample;) [43,137,144; fig. 13];
filtering the reference block according to the model parameter, to determine a filtered reference block (i.e. filter parameter used to filter video) [122,214];
determining a prediction value of the current block according to the filtered reference block (i.e. Step 805: Obtain a prediction value of the current chroma block based on the second luma block and the linear model coefficients.) [122,214,245; fig. 13]; and
determining a reconstructed value of the current block according to the prediction value of the current block (i.e. reconstructed region determined) [8,122,214].
Regarding claim 2, Ma meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein determining the first template of the current block comprises:
determining a template type of the current block (i.e. obtain template samples used to determine a prediction of a block. These templates can be for chroma and luma (type)) [17,43; fig. 13]; and
determining the first template of the current block according to the template type of the current block (i.e. obtain template samples used to determine a prediction of a block. Templates are determined different based on the type) [20,43; fig. 13].
Regarding claim 3, Ma meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 2, wherein determining the template type of the current block comprises:
determining the template type of the current block according to reference samples of the current block (i.e. top and left neighboring samples used as reference samples would be used in determining the templates) [6,27];
wherein the reference samples of the current block comprise at least one of:
left neighbouring reference samples of the current block, top neighbouring reference samples of the current block (i.e. top and left neighboring samples used as reference samples would be used in determining the templates) [6],
top-left neighbouring reference samples of the current block,
bottom-left neighbouring reference samples of the current block, or
top-right neighbouring reference samples of the current block; or
decoding a bitstream, to determine the template type of the current block; or
determining the template type of the current block according to a size of the current block.
Claim 14 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1. This is the encoder of claim 1. Corresponding encoder structure shown in fig. 2 and 12.
Claim 15 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 2.
Claim 16 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 3.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Lee US 20210281838.
Regarding claim 5, Ma do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein determining the matching template comprises: determining to construct a vector parameter candidate list of the current block according to a prediction mode parameter of the current block; and determining a target vector parameter according to the vector parameter candidate list; and determining the matching template according to the target vector parameter and the first template.
However, in the same field of endeavor Lee discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein determining the matching template comprises: determining to construct a vector parameter candidate list of the current block according to a prediction mode parameter of the current block; and determining a target vector parameter according to the vector parameter candidate list; and determining the matching template according to the target vector parameter and the first template (i.e. MV candidate list used to determine motion vector (target) of a block. Template matching index indicates the template) [112-115,307-317].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Ma with Lee to have the determining the matching template comprises: determining to construct a vector parameter candidate list of the current block according to a prediction mode parameter of the current block; and determining a target vector parameter according to the vector parameter candidate list; and determining the matching template according to the target vector parameter and the first template
It would be advantageous because "[0036] According to the present invention, an image encoding/decoding method and apparatus with improved encoding/decoding efficiency may be provided.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Ma with Lee to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Lee meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 5, wherein determining to construct the vector parameter candidate list of the current block according to the prediction mode parameter of the current block comprises: determining to construct a merge vector parameter candidate list of the current block according to the prediction mode parameter of the current block; or determining to construct an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) vector parameter candidate list of the current block according to the prediction mode parameter of the current block (i.e. merge candidate list used to predict the block) [115-118].
Claim 6 is combined using similar rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Lee meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the model parameter comprises coefficients of a target filter (i.e. ALF coefficients signaled in bitstream) [154,174].
Claim 7 is combined using similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 5.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 6.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Wang US 20220224915.
Regarding claim 9, Ma do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
determining a boundary padding region of the reference block and a reference template corresponding to the reference block; and performing boundary sample padding on the boundary padding region
However, in the same field of endeavor Wang discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
determining a boundary padding region of the reference block and a reference template corresponding to the reference block; and performing boundary sample padding on the boundary padding region (i.e. In some examples, the samples of segments A and F are not fetched from reconstructed neighboring samples but padded with the closest samples from Segment B and E, respectively.) [138; fig. 16].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Ma with Wang to have the determining a boundary padding region of the reference block and a reference template corresponding to the reference block; and performing boundary sample padding on the boundary padding region.
It would be advantageous because padding samples enables them to be the proper size to be used as references which can increase coding efficiency.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Ma with Wang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Wang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 9, wherein the boundary padding region comprises at least one of: an edge neighbouring region of the matching template, a point neighbouring region of the matching template, an edge neighbouring region of the reference block, or a point neighbouring region of the reference block (i.e. In some examples, the samples of segments A and F are not fetched from reconstructed neighboring samples but padded with the closest samples from Segment B and E, respectively. These would be from edge neighboring regions) [138; fig. 16].
Claim 10 is combined using similar rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Wang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 9, wherein performing the boundary sample padding on the boundary padding region comprises: performing the boundary sample padding on a first boundary padding region corresponding to the matching template by using neighbouring sample reconstructed values within the matching template; and performing the boundary sample padding on a second boundary padding region corresponding to the reference template by using neighbouring sample reconstructed values within the reference block (i.e. In some examples, the samples of segments A and F are not fetched from reconstructed neighboring samples but padded with the closest samples from Segment B and E, respectively. These would be from edge neighboring regions) [138; fig. 16].
Claim 11 is combined using similar rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Wang meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method according to claim 9, further comprising: determining that a sample at a first position within the boundary padding region is unavailable, and performing the boundary sample padding on the first position within the boundary padding region (i.e. In some examples, the samples of segments A and F are not fetched from reconstructed neighboring samples but padded with the closest samples from Segment B and E, respectively. These would be from edge neighboring regions) [138; fig. 16].
Claim 12 is combined using similar rationale as claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,8,13, and 17 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 - 4:30 Mountain.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights