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 § 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 byt he manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0421773) (Lien Fei Chen) in view of Esenilk et al. (US 2022/0116586) (Semih Esenlik).
Regarding Claim 1,Chen discloses a method for video processing, comprising: performing a conversion between a current video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video [See abstract Paragraphs 106-137], wherein the current video unit is coded with a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) based prediction mode, whether a value for a metric of a blending region of the current video unit in a direction is indicated in the bitstream is dependent on content of the current video unit [See abstract and Paragraphs 16-23,42, 113-121], and
Chen doesn’t explicitly disclose values for samples in the blending region are determined based on values for samples in a plurality of predictions associated with the current video unit
However, Esenilk discloses values for samples in the blending region are determined based on values for samples in a plurality of predictions associated with the current video unit [See abstract and Paragraphs 18-26, 231-257 and 273-296].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Chen to add the teachings in Esenilk as above, to provide a method that improve video quality by second blending operation does not apply any filtering such that sharpness of a feature is maintained and blurring is avoided [See abstract and Paragraphs4 and 9].
Regarding Claim 2, Chen discloses wherein the GPM based prediction mode comprises at least one of the following: a GPM mode, a spatial GPM (SGPM) mode, a GPM inter-intra mode, a GPM template matching (GPM-TM) mode, or a GPM merge mode with motion vector difference (GPM-MMVD) mode [See Paragraphs 105-106].
Regarding Claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the metric is a width between two sides of the blending region [See abstract Paragraphs 113-137].
Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses wherein the current video unit comprises one of the following: a block, a sequence, or a group of pictures [See abstract].
Regarding Claim 5, Chen doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein if the content of the current video unit is one of non-screen content, non-graphics content or non-texture content, the value for the metric is indicated in the bitstream, or if the content of the current video unit is one of screen content, graphics content or texture content, the value for the metric is absent from the bitstream and is determined based on coding information associated with the current video unit
However, Esenilk discloses wherein if the content of the current video unit is one of non-screen content, non-graphics content or non-texture content, the value for the metric is indicated in the bitstream, or if the content of the current video unit is one of screen content, graphics content or texture content, the value for the metric is absent from the bitstream and is determined based on coding information associated with the current video unit [See Paragraphs 231-257 and 273-296].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Chen to add the teachings in Esenilk as above, to provide a method that improve video quality by second blending operation does not apply any filtering such that sharpness of a feature is maintained and blurring is avoided [See abstract and Paragraphs4 and 9].
Regarding Claim 6, Chen doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein if the content of the current video unit is one of screen content, graphics content or texture content, the value for the metric is indicated in the bitstream, or if the content of the current video unit is one of non-screen content, non-graphics content or non-texture content, the value for the metric is absent from the bitstream and is determined based on coding information associated with the current video unit
However, Esenilk discloses wherein if the content of the current video unit is one of screen content, graphics content or texture content, the value for the metric is indicated in the bitstream, or if the content of the current video unit is one of non-screen content, non-graphics content or non-texture content, the value for the metric is absent from the bitstream and is determined based on coding information associated with the current video unit [See Paragraphs 231-257 and 273-296].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Chen to add the teachings in Esenilk as above, to provide a method that improve video quality by second blending operation does not apply any filtering such that sharpness of a feature is maintained and blurring is avoided [See abstract and Paragraphs4 and 9].
Regarding Claim 7, Chen discloses wherein the value for the metric is indicated in the bitstream [See Paragraphs 23].
Regarding Claim 8, Chen doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein at least one list of candidate values for the metric is predetermined
However, Esenilk discloses wherein at least one list of candidate values for the metric is predetermined [See Paragraphs 73-110].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Chen to add the teachings in Esenilk as above, to provide a method that improve video quality by second blending operation does not apply any filtering such that sharpness of a feature is maintained and blurring is avoided [See abstract and Paragraphs4 and 9].
Regarding Claim 9, Chen doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein different lists of candidate values for the metric are predetermined based on different block sizes
However, Esenilk discloses wherein different lists of candidate values for the metric are predetermined based on different block sizes [See Paragraphs 150-195].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Chen to add the teachings in Esenilk as above, to provide a method that improve video quality by second blending operation does not apply any filtering such that sharpness of a feature is maintained and blurring is avoided [See abstract and Paragraphs4 and 9].
Regarding Claim 10, Chen doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein a first list of candidate values for the metric is predetermined for a block size less than a threshold size, and a second list of candidate values for the metric is predetermined for a block size greater than or equal to the threshold size
However, Esenilk discloses wherein a first list of candidate values for the metric is predetermined for a block size less than a threshold size, and a second list of candidate values for the metric is predetermined for a block size greater than or equal to the threshold size [See Paragraphs 150-197].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Chen to add the teachings in Esenilk as above, to provide a method that improve video quality by second blending operation does not apply any filtering such that sharpness of a feature is maintained and blurring is avoided [See abstract and Paragraphs4 and 9].
Regarding Claim 11, Chen discloses wherein the bitstream comprises a first indication indicating the value for the metric of the blending region of the current video unit [See Paragraphs 16-23 AND 106-133].
Regarding Claim 12, Chen discloses wherein the first indication comprises an index [See Paragraphs 16-23 AND 106-133].
Regarding Claim 13, Chen discloses wherein at least one candidate value for the metric that is allowed for an SGPM is a subset of a plurality of candidate values for the metric that are allowed for a further GPM based prediction mode different from the SGPM, or wherein at least one candidate value for the metric that is allowed for an SGPM is the same as at least one candidate value for the metric that is allowed for a further GPM based prediction mode different from the SGPM, or wherein at least one candidate value for the metric that is allowed for a further GPM based prediction mode different from an SGPM is a subset of a plurality of candidate values for the metric that are allowed for the SGPM [See Paragraphs 105-106].
Regarding Claim 14, Chen discloses wherein the further GPM based prediction mode comprises a GPM mode [See Paragraphs 16-17].
Regarding Claim 15, Chen doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein a value for a metric of a blending region of a further video unit in a direction is determined based on content of the further video unit, the further video unit is coded with a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) based prediction mode, and values for samples in the blending region are determined based on values for samples in a plurality of predictions associated with the further video unit
However, Esenilk discloses wherein a value for a metric of a blending region of a further video unit in a direction is determined based on content of the further video unit, the further video unit is coded with a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) based prediction mode, and values for samples in the blending region are determined based on values for samples in a plurality of predictions associated with the further video unit [See Paragraphs 18-26, 231-257 and 273-296].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Chen to add the teachings in Esenilk as above, to provide a method that improve video quality by second blending operation does not apply any filtering such that sharpness of a feature is maintained and blurring is avoided [See abstract and Paragraphs4 and 9].
Regarding Claim 16, Chen discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video unit into the bitstream See Figs. 3-7 and 12].
Regarding Claim 17, Chen discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video unit from the bitstream See Paragraphs Figs. 3-7 and 12].
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 19, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSION B OWENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/TSION B OWENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights