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 Interpretation
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
At present claim 20, is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing”, the method comprising a plurality of steps for generating the bitstream. While the generating method may be performed by an intended computer, the generating method is not stored on the computer readable storage medium. Rather, only resulting bitstream data is stored on the computer readable recording medium. It is the bitstream itself, therefore, that must have a functional relationship. Because there are no recitations of the bitstream causing an intended computer to perform some function, Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored. Therefore, the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is decoded are not given patentable weight. As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
Examiner Remarks
Claims are interpreted in the alternative only.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 14, 15, and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (WO 2022/167322) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 1, 18, 19, and 20, Chen teaches a method of video processing (e.g. pg. 1, line 34 – pg. 2, line 11: describing a method of processing video), an apparatus for video processing comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method (e.g., pg. 2, lines 12 – 33: describing an apparatus for video processing, the apparatus including one or more processors configured to implement a method of video processing, the method of video processing stored as instructions in memory that when executed by the one or more processors cause the processors to perform the method [see, e.g. Fig. 25 and pg. 25, lines 7 – 10: depicting and describing that the apparatus includes memory loaded with instructions that cause the one or more processors to implement a method]), a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform the method (e.g. Fig. 25, and pg. 25, lines 7 – 8 and 28 – 36: depicting and describing that the system includes memory and storage devices that store program code/instructions that causes a processor to perform a method) , and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by the method performed by an apparatus for video processing (e.g. Fig. 25, elements 5020 and 5040, and pg. 25, lines 28 – 36: depicting and describing that the system includes memory and storage devices, the memory and storage devices storing the bitstream generated by the video processing), the method comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a video unit of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether an intra block copy (IBC) and local illumination compensation (LIC) (IBC-LIC) is applied to the video unit (e.g. Fig. 22 and pg. 21, line 6 – pg. 22, line 3: depicting and describing that the system determines first that a block is an IBC block, then further determines whether LIC is applied to the IBC coded block [element 4040]);
in accordance with a determination that the IBC-LIC is applied to the video unit, performing a compensation process to a prediction/reconstruction of the video unit using a model of the IBC-LIC (e.g. Fig. 22 and pg. 21, line 6 – pg. 22, line 3: depicting and describing that the system applies LIC to the IBC block when it is determined that the IBC block has LIC applied to it, the system performing LIC to the IBC block using a model of the IBC-LIC [depicting and describing that the system determines LIC parameters for the IBC block and performs compensation of the IBC block using the determined parameters, wherein determining LIC parameters for the IBC block is the equivalent of using a model of the IBC-LIC]) ; and
performing the conversion based on the compensated prediction/reconstruction of the video unit (e.g. pg. 1, line 34 – pg. 2, line 11: describing that the system encodes or decodes the block based on the LIC compensated block).
Turning to claim 2, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein one or more offsets are used to modify one or more parameters of the model, and/or wherein the model is presented as: co x Xo + c1 x X1 + c2 x X2 +...+ cN x XN + B, and wherein ci represents a parameter and xi represents coding information, i is an integer number and in a range from 0 to N, N is a predefined number, B represents a bias parameter which is derived together with ci (e.g. Fig. 2 and pg. 7, line 23 – pg. 8, line 9: depicting and describing that the LIC model is presented as α x Pr(x + vx, y + vy) + β, wherein α is the equivalent of ci, Pr(x + vx, y + vy) is the equivalent of Xi and β is the equivalent of B).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the one or more offsets are indicated, or wherein the one or more offsets are derived, or wherein the one or more offsets are predefined, and/or wherein whether to and/or a way to use the one or more offsets to modify the one or more parameters is indicated, or wherein whether to and/or a way to use the one or more offsets to modify the one or more parameters is predefined, or wherein whether to and/or a way to use the one or more offsets to modify the one or more parameters is determined based on coding information, and/or wherein the coding information comprises at least one of: reconstruction samples, reference samples, prediction samples, values calculated using the reconstruction samples, values calculated using the reference samples, values calculated using the prediction samples, position information of the reconstruction samples, position information of the reference samples, or position information of the prediction samples (e.g. Fig. 2 and pg. 7, line 23 – pg. 8, line 9: depicting and describing that Pr(x + vx, y + vy) include reference samples, wherein Pr(x + vx, y + vy) is the equivalent of Xi).
Turning to claim 4, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein a current template comprising neighboring reconstructed samples of the video unit and a reference template are used to derive parameters of the model, and the reference template is derived using a block vector (BV) that is used to obtain the prediction of the video unit, and/or wherein a way solving a model used for another coding tool is used to derive parameters of the model, and/or wherein more than one way is used to derive parameters for IBC-LIC (e.g. Fig. 21, and pg. 21, line 10 – pg. 22, line 3: depicting and describing that the system derives parameters of the model [α and β] using a current template [T] comprising neighboring reconstructed samples of the video unit and a reference template [TIBC], the reference template derived using a BV used to obtain the prediction of the block).
Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 4, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein if the BV is a fractional BV, the fractional BV is rounded to an integer BV, and/or wherein the way is Gaussian elimination used in CCCM and/or a variant of Gaussian elimination, and/or wherein which way is used to derive the parameters is indicated, or wherein which way is used to derive the parameters is predefined, or wherein which way is used to derive the parameters is determined based coding information (Chen, e.g. Fig. 21, and pg. 21, line 10 – pg. 22, line 3: depicting and describing that the system uses a predefined method to derive parameters of the IBC-LIC model).
Turning to claim 14, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein whether to and/or how to perform the compensation process to the prediction/reconstruction of the video unit using a model of the IBC-LIC depends on video characteristics, and/or wherein the video unit is applied with other coding tools (e.g. Figs. 23 and 24, and pg. 23, line 18 – pg. 24, line 29: depicting and describing that the coding block is applied with other coding tools).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the other coding tool comprises an inter prediction, or wherein the other coding tool comprises an intra prediction, or wherein the other coding tool comprises an in-loop filter (e.g. Figs. 23 and 24, and pg. 23, line 18 – pg. 24, line 29: depicting and describing that the other coding tool includes an in-loop filter).
Turning to claim 17, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein the conversion includes encoding the video unit into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the video unit from the bitstream (Chen, e.g. pg. 1, line 34 – pg. 2, line 11: describing that the system encodes the block into the bitstream or that the system decodes the block from the bitstream).
Regarding claim 20:
As discussed above, claim 20 has been interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and associated case law cited therein because claim 20 recites “a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by an apparatus for video processing.” As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable recording medium known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 20 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely support or carrier for the bitstream being stored wherein the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is generated should not be given patentable weight. Chen teaches a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream comprising video information (Chen, e.g. Fig. 25, elements 5020 and 5040, and pg. 25, lines 28 – 36: depicting and describing that the system includes memory and storage devices, the memory and storage devices storing the bitstream generated by the video processing).
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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2022/167322) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0235073) (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the IBC-LIC is used in a process of reordering a BV candidate list.
Liu, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein the IBC-LIC is used in a process of reordering a BV candidate list (e.g. pars. 551 – 556: describing that LIC is used in a process of reordering a candidate list, wherein LIC is the equivalent of IBC-LIC and wherein the candidate list is the equivalent of the BV candidate list).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Liu in order for the IBC-LIC to be used in a process of reordering a BV candidate list. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 7, Chen and Liu teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 6, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein two-pass reordering is used to reorder the BV candidate list.
Liu, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein two-pass reordering is used to reorder the BV candidate list (e.g. pars. 551 – 556: describing the system first generates the candidate list then reorders the candidate list using LIC, wherein first generating the candidate list then reordering the candite list is the equivalent of two-pass reordering, wherein LIC is the equivalent of IBC-LIC and wherein the candidate list is the equivalent of the BV candidate list).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Liu in order for two-pass reordering to be used to reorder the BV candidate list. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2022/167322) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (WO 2023/117861) (hereinafter Chen 2).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein more than one LIC equation is used to compensate the prediction or reconstruction of the video unit, and parameters of the more than one LIC equations are derived using different templates.
Chen 2, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein more than one LIC equation is used to compensate the prediction or reconstruction of the video unit, and parameters of the more than one LIC equations are derived using different templates (Figs. 13 and 14: and pars. 155 – 164: depicting and describing that multiple LIC models are used to encode or decode the current block, parameters of the multiple LIC models derived using different templates, wherein the current block is the equivalent of the video unit).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Chen 2 in order for more than one LIC equation to be used to compensate the prediction or reconstruction of the video unit, and parameters of the more than one LIC equations to be derived using different templates. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improve compression efficiency (Chen 2, e.g. par. 135: describing a desire to improve compression efficiency).
Turning to claim 10, Chen and Chen 2 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as discussed above. Chen further teaches:
wherein at least one of the following templates is used to derive the parameters: left template, above template, left-above template, left-below template, or above-right template (e.g. Fig. 21: depicting that the templates include an above template and a left template).
Claim(s) 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2022/167322) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant, as applied to claims 1 and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2026/006187) (hereinafter Lim).
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein one or more of: at least one parameter in the model or at least one IBC-LIC model used for video units coded before a current video unit are used for the current video unit, and/or wherein one or more of: at least one parameter in the model or at least one IBC-LIC model used for video units decoded before a current video unit are used for the current video unit, and/or wherein the IBC-LIC is applied to sub-blocks within the video unit which is a current video unit.
Lim, however, teaches a method of video processing:
wherein one or more of: at least one parameter in the model or at least one IBC-LIC model used for video units coded before a current video unit are used for the current video unit, and/or wherein one or more of: at least one parameter in the model or at least one IBC-LIC model used for video units decoded before a current video unit are used for the current video unit, and/or wherein the IBC-LIC is applied to sub-blocks within the video unit which is a current video unit (e.g. par. 2642: describing that an IBC-LIC model parameters are inherited from a previously encoded/decoded block).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Lim in order for one or more of: at least one parameter in the model or at least one IBC-LIC model used for video units coded before a current video unit are used for the current video unit, and/or wherein one or more of: at least one parameter in the model or at least one IBC-LIC model used for video units decoded before a current video unit are used for the current video unit, and/or wherein the IBC-LIC is applied to sub-blocks within the video unit which is a current video unit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improve compression efficiency.
Turning to claim 16, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 14, and 15, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the inter prediction is a local illumination compensation (LIC), OR wherein the intra prediction comprises IntraTMP.
Lim, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein the inter prediction is a local illumination compensation (LIC), OR wherein the intra prediction comprises IntraTMP (e.g. pars. 2632 – 2636: describing that the IBC-LIC compensated block may further be used with IntraTMP).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Lim in order for the inter prediction is a local illumination compensation (LIC), OR wherein the intra prediction comprises IntraTMP. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improve compression efficiency.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2022/167322) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (WO 2020/084507) (hereinafter Liu 2).
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein more than one way is used to derive parameters for IBC-LIC.
Liu 2, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein more than one way is used to derive parameters for IBC-LIC (e.g. Fig. 41B and par. 289, section 5.13 and par. 300: describing that different templates may be used to derive LIC parameters for a current block, wherein using different templates to derive LIC parameters is the equivalent of more than one way used to derive parameters for IBC-LIC).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Liu 2 in order for more than one way to be used to derive parameters for IBC-LIC. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improve compression efficiency.
Turning to claim 12, Chen and Liu 2 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 10, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein which way is used to derive the parameters is indicted, or wherein which way is used to derive the parameters is predefined, or wherein which way is used to derive the parameters is determined based on coding information.
Liu 2, however, teaches a method for video processing:
wherein which way is used to derive the parameters is indicted, or wherein which way is used to derive the parameters is predefined, or wherein which way is used to derive the parameters is determined based on coding information (e.g. par. 289, section 5.13: describing that which template is used to derive LIC parameters for the current block is based on coding information, indicated by block shape, or predefined).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Liu 2 in order for which way to be used to derive the parameters to be indicated, or for which way to be used to derive the parameters to be predefined, or for which way to be used to derive the parameters to be determined based on coding information. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improve compression efficiency.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (WO 2022/167322) (hereinafter Chen), as cited by applicant, in view of Liu et al. (US 2021/0235073) (hereinafter Liu) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lim et al. (US 2026/0006187) (hereinafter Lim).
Regarding claim 8, Chen and Liu teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 7, as discussed above. Chen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the IBC-LIC is applied in at least one of: a first pass reordering, or a second pass reordering.
Lim, however, teaches a method of video processing:
wherein the IBC-LIC is applied in at least one of: a first pass reordering, or a second pass reordering (e.g. pars. 2637 – 2657: describing that IBC-LIC is applied based on a constructed and pruned candidate list, wherein a constructed and pruned candidate list is the equivalent of the first pass reordering).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chen by adding the teachings of Lim in order for the IBC-LIC to be applied in at least one of: a first pass reordering, or a second pass reordering. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improve compression efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights