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 . 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. There are a total of 20 claims and claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on01/27/2023 and 12/16/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 1, 7,8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brian et al. (NPL-Proposed Cleanup for Reference Wraparound; Pub. March 19-27, 2019; given by applicant in the IDS) in view of HANAHART et al. (WO 2020/069058 A1; filed Sept. 09, 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Brian teaches method for performing motion compensation, performed by a decoder([abstract and Introduction]-motion compensation), performed by a decoder and comprising: receiving a second wrap-around motion compensation flag associated with a sequence of pictures comprising the one or more pictures and indicating whether horizontal wrap-around motion compensation is enabled for the sequence of pictures ([see pg. 4 last para]- horizontal ,wrap-around motion compensation is applied in inter prediction); and in response to the first wrap-around motion compensation flag indicating the horizontal wrap-around motion compensation being enabled for the one or more pictures ([abstract]- sps_ref_wraparound_enabled _ flag), receiving a parameter associated with a wrap-around motion compensation offset; ([see in Fig. 1 and abstract, Introduction]- "sps _ref_ wraparound _offset _minusl plus 1 specifies the offset used for computing the horizontal wrap-around position in units of MinCbSizeY luma samples), and determining the wrap-around motion compensation offset based on the parameter associated with the wrap-around motion compensation offset ([see section:7.4.3.1]- sps ref_ wraparound_ enabled_ flag equal to 1 specifies that horizontal wrap-around motion compensation is applied in inter prediction. sps_ref_wraparound_enabled_flag equal to 0 specifies that horizontal wrap-around motion compensation is not applied. When sps_ref_wrnparound_enabled_flag is not present, it is inferred to be equal to 0).
However, Brian does not exclusively disclose wherein the first wrap-around motion compensation flag and the parameter associated with the wrap-around motion compensation offset are encoded in a picture parameter set, and the second wrap-around motion compensation flag is encoded in a sequence parameter set.
In an analogous art, HANAHART teaches wherein the first wrap-around motion compensation flag and the parameter associated with the wrap-around motion compensation offset are encoded in a picture parameter set, and the second wrap-around motion compensation flag is encoded in a sequence parameter set ([abstract, para 0003-0005]- performing horizontal geometry padding on a current sample based on receiving a wraparound enabled indication that indicates whether a horizontal wraparound motion compensation is enabled. If the horizontal wraparound motion compensation is enabled based on the wraparound enabled indication, a video coding device may determine a reference sample wraparound offset of a current sample in a picture). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of HANAHART to the modified system of Brian for performing horizontal geometry padding on a current sample based on receiving a wraparound enabled indication that indicates a horizontal wraparound motion compensation is enabled to allow the user to interact with objects in the VR world in a natural way, the VR may provide haptic feedback to the user[HANAHART; para 0003] .
Regarding claim 7, HANAHART discloses performing motion compensation on a plurality of pictures, wherein the plurality of pictures have different sizes([see in fig. 11-13]-different size pictures).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for method claim 8 have been met in method claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 15 have been met in claim 1.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brian in view of HANAHART as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of ZUO ( WO 2019184934 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Brian and HANAHART do not explicitly disclose s teaches wherein the wrap-around motion compensation offset is obtained by adding a value of the parameter with a luma coding tree block size in unit of minimum coding block and further with 2.
In an analogous art, ZUO discloses s teaches wherein the wrap-around motion compensation offset is obtained by adding a value of the parameter with a luma coding tree block size in unit of minimum coding block and further with 2([para 0148]- if there are m luminance blocks with motion vectors that can be referenced, add m intra-frame motion compensation modes to the prediction mode candidate queue. The mode numbers of these m intra-frame motion compensation modes can be the same or different. When the mode numbers of the m intraframe motion compensation modes are different, the mode numbers of these m intra-frame motion compensation modes can be based on the first intra-frame motion compensation mode and incremented sequentially according to the order of addition, for example, by 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of ZUO to the modified system of Brian and HANAHART a method for intra-frame prediction of chroma, which solves the problems that the current intra-frame motion compensation technology is relatively complex and has a high computational cost for determining motion vectors [ZUO; para 0008].
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 10-13 and 17-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, The method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining whether the second wrap-around motion compensation flag is equal to a first value or a second value, wherein the second wrap-around motion compensation flag equal to the first value indicates horizontal wrap-around motion compensation is enabled for the sequence of pictures; and the second wrap-around motion compensation flag equal to the second value indicates horizontal wrap-around motion compensation is disabled for the sequence of pictures; in response to the determination that the second wrap-around motion compensation flag is equal to the first value, determining a luma coding tree block size plus an offset is less than or equal to a picture width of the one or more pictures; or in response to a determination that the second wrap-around motion compensation flag is equal to the second value, determining that the first wrap-around motion compensation flag is also equal to the second value; wherein the first wrap-around motion compensation flag equal to the first value indicates horizontal wrap-around motion compensation is enabled for the one or more pictures; and the first wrap-around motion compensation flag equal to the second value indicates horizontal wrap-around motion compensation is disabled for the one or more pictures.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art are made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. He et al., US 2022/0038737 A1, Methods and apparatus for using flexible grid regions in picture or video frames.
2. CHOI et al., US 2020/0213617 A1, discloses Method a wrap-around padding processing for 360 omnidirectional media coding.
3. Seregin et. al., US 2021/0029371 A1, discloses Techniques for wraparound motion compensation.
4. CHIU et al., US 2021/0160482 A1, discloses methods and apparatuses in video encoding and decoding systems. In particular, the present invention relates to horizontal wraparound motion compensation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD NAZMUL HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5328. The examiner can normally be reached IFW.
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 on 5712727327. 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.
/MD N HAQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights