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 the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 17 and 18 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.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Claim 17 recites “a processor, configured to store a bitstream to be decoded by the decoding method according to claim 1,” while claim 18 recites “a processor, configured to store a bitstream generated by the encoding method according to claim 10.” It is unclear whether the processor is merely configured to store the respective bitstream or is also required to perform the recited decoding or encoding method. Thus, the relationship between the processor and the incorporated method steps is unclear.
For purposes of examination, claims 17 and 18 are interpreted as requiring the processor to perform the respective method of claim 1 or claim 10.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 11, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hue et al. (“Non-EE2: Intra template matching (Intra TMP) based on linear filter model” Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 29th Meeting, by teleconference, 11–20 January 2023 - Document: JVET-AC0109-v1), hereinafter referred to as Hue, in view of Chen et al. (US20240214553A1), hereinafter referred to as Chen.
Regarding claim 1, Hue discloses a method for decoding video data, comprising: obtaining a set of filter coefficients corresponding to a filter shape based on sample values from both a training area associated with the reference block and a training area associated with the current block (Abstract discloses that “[f]ilter coefficients are derived for each block using the regression based the minimized MSE on samples between the reference template and current template.” p.2 minimizes MSE between the two templates.);
deriving, with the set of filter coefficients and the filter shape, each of predicted sample values of the current block based on a plurality of corresponding sample values associated with the reference block (Abstract discloses “[t]he 6-tap linear filter consists of 5 spatial luma samples in the reference block and a bias term.” §2 identifies center (C), north (N), south (S), east (E), and west (W) neighbors and gives predLumaVal = c0C + c1N + c2S + c3E + c4W + c5B)
Hue does not explicitly disclose determining a reference block in a video frame from a bitstream for predicting a current block in the video frame; and
reconstructing the current block based on the predicted sample values.
However, Chen from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses determining a reference block in a video frame from a bitstream for predicting a current block in the video frame (¶[0120] discloses IBC in which “a block vector is used to indicate the displacement from the current block to a reference block, which is already reconstructed inside the current picture.” ¶[0136] states that the decoder input is a video bitstream that is entropy decoded to obtain transform coefficients, motion vectors, and other coded information. See also ¶[0122] and Figs. 20-22.); and
reconstructing the current block based on the predicted sample values (¶[0122] discloses generating final prediction samples of the current IBC block by applying the spatial LIC parameters on the IBC prediction samples. ¶[0136] further describes the decoder combining decoded prediction residuals with the predicted block to reconstruct an image
block.).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Hue to add the teachings of Chen as above, in order to provide a spatial LIC that allows to compensate for gradual illumination in a same picture. (Chen, [00055]).
Regarding claim 2, Hue and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Furthermore, Hue discloses the method of claim 1, wherein deriving each of predicted sample values of the current block comprises: deriving each of predicted luma sample values of the current block based on a plurality of corresponding luma sample values associated with the reference block; or deriving each of predicted chroma sample values of the current block based on a plurality of corresponding chroma sample values associated with the reference block. (Abstract states that the 6 tap linear filter consists of five spatial luma samples in the reference block and a bias term; §2 applies the filter to those luma samples).
Regarding claim 6, Hue and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hue does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the training area associated with the reference block comprise N lines above and/or left to the reference block, and the training area associated with the current block comprise N lines above and/or left to the current block, wherein N is an integer.
However, Chen from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the training area associated with the reference block comprise N lines above and/or left to the reference block, and the training area associated with the current block comprise N lines above and/or left to the current block, wherein N is an integer (See ¶[0113] and Fig. 17 disclose multiple reference lines for both the current-block template T and reference block template T'. Chen describes an additional left and above line, i.e., an
example with two reconstructed reference lines).
The motivation for combining Hue and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 15 these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claims 1, 2 and 6, since they claim analogous subject matter for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: an encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
Regarding claim 17, Hue and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hue does not explicitly disclose an electronic apparatus, comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium; and
a processor, configured to store a bitstream to be decoded by the decoding method according to claim 1.
However, Chen from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses an electronic apparatus, comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium (¶[0125] contemplates implementation as an apparatus and as a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a
bitstream generated according to the described methods. ¶[0139] discloses system 5000 with at least one processor 5010, memory 5020, and storage device 5040); and
a processor, configured to store a bitstream (¶[0141] states that memory/storage
can store items including the bitstream. ¶¶[0135]-[0136] disclose the decoder receiving and decoding a video bitstream) to be decoded by the decoding method according to claim 1 (Hue and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1).
The motivation for combining Hue and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 18, Hue and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hue does not explicitly disclose an electronic apparatus, comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium; and
a processor, configured to store a bitstream generated by the encoding method according to claim 10.
However, Chen from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses an electronic apparatus, comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable medium (¶[0125] contemplates implementation as an apparatus and as a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon a
bitstream generated according to the described methods. ¶[0139] discloses system 5000 with at least one processor 5010, memory 5020, and storage device 5040); and
a processor, configured to store a bitstream (¶[0141] states that memory/storage
can store items including the bitstream. ¶¶[0135]-[0136] disclose the decoder receiving and decoding a video bitstream) generated by the encoding method according to claim 10 (Hue and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 10).
The motivation for combining Hue and Chen has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the apparatus of claim 18, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of a method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hue, in view of Chen , and further, in view of Aminlou (AHG12: Division-free operation and dynamic range reduction for convolutional cross-component model (CCCM) Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 28th Meeting, Mainz, DE, 20–28 October 2022 Document: JVET-AB0174), hereinafter referred to as Aminlou.
Regarding claim 3, Hue and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hue does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein deriving each of predicted sample values of the current block comprises: performing convolution operation on the set of the filter coefficients and the plurality of corresponding sample values to derive a result of the convolution operation, and deriving each of the predicted sample values based on the result of the convolution operation and a reference sample value associated with the current block..
However, Aminlou from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method of claim 1, wherein deriving each of predicted sample values of the current block comprises: performing convolution operation on the set of the filter coefficients and the plurality of corresponding sample values to derive a result of the convolution operation (p. 1 states that the filter output is calculated as a convolution between filter coefficients ci and the input values. p. 2 defines C'=C-offsetLuma, N'=N-offsetLuma, S'=S-offsetLuma, E'=E
offsetLuma, and W'=W-offsetLuma), and
deriving each of the predicted sample values based on the result of the convolution operation and a reference sample value associated with the current block (p. 1 states that the filter output is calculated as a convolution between filter coefficients ci and the input values. p. 2 defines C'=C-offsetLuma, N'=N-offsetLuma, S'=S-offsetLuma, E'=E offsetLuma, and W'=W-offsetLuma).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Hue and Chen to add the teachings of Aminlou as above, in order to improve coding efficiency and runtimes (Aminlou, Abstract and § 3).
Regarding claim 4, Hue, Chen and Aminlou disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hue does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3, wherein
the plurality of corresponding sample values comprise one or more sample values represented as one or more of a plurality of sample values associated with the reference block reduced by the reference sample value respectively; or the plurality of corresponding sample values comprise one or more sample values represented as a square of one or more of a plurality of sample values associated with the reference block reduced by the reference sample value respectively.
However, Aminlou from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method of claim 3, wherein
the plurality of corresponding sample values comprise one or more sample values represented as one or more of a plurality of sample values associated with the reference block reduced by the reference sample value respectively; or the plurality of corresponding sample values comprise one or more sample values represented as a square of one or more of a plurality of sample values associated with the reference block reduced by the reference sample value respectively (p. 2 states that reference sample values at or just outside the top-left corner of
the PU are used as offsets, including offsetLuma, and expressly defines the spatial luma inputs as C-offsetLuma, N-offsetLuma, S-offsetLuma, E-offsetLuma, and WoffsetLuma.).
The motivation for combining Hue, Chen and Aminlou has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 5, Hue, Chen and Aminlou disclose all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hue does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 3, wherein the reference sample value is the sample value of a top-left sample adjacent to the current block.
However, Chen or Aminlou from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the reference sample value is the sample value of a top-left sample adjacent to the current block (p. 2 identifies the luma offset as a reference sample value at or just outside the top-left corner of the PU).
The motivation for combining Hue, Chen and Aminlou has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claims 12-14, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claims 3-5, since they claim analogous subject matter for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hue, in view of Chen , and further, in view of Zhan et al. (US20200195960A1), hereinafter referred to as Zhan60.
Regarding claim 7, Hue and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1 , and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hue does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the training area associated with the reference block is non-adjacent to the reference block, and the training area associated with the current block is non-adjacent to the current block.
However, Zhan60 from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the training area associated with the reference block is non-adjacent to the reference block, and the training area associated with the current block is non-adjacent to the current block (¶[0184] derives IC parameters using neighboring samples of a current CU and their corresponding reference samples. ¶[0531] further teaches that, instead of using the spatial neighbors as the template, spatial neighbors of a non-adjacent block may be used when deriving the IC parameters to avoid degrading codec parallelism).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Hue and Chen to add the teachings of Zhan60 as above, in order to avoid degrading parallelism of the codec (Zhan60, [0531]).
Regarding claim 16 , this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 7, since it claims analogous subject matter for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hue, in view of Chen , and further, in view of Zhang (Non-EE2: Intra Template-Matching Prediction Fusion Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 29th Meeting, by teleconference, 11-20 January 2023 Document: JVET-AC0069-v2), hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Regarding claim 8, Hue and Chen disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hue does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
deriving each of predicted sample values of the current block based on a plurality of corresponding sample values associated with at least one second reference block in the video frame; and
reconstructing the current block by applying weighting factors for the predicted sample values.
However, Zhang from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
deriving each of predicted sample values of the current block based on a plurality of corresponding sample values associated with at least one second reference block in the video frame (Abstract and p. 2 disclose multiple IntraTMP matched blocks, selection of the
best candidate matched blocks, and fusion of the selected blocks. Zhang states that once the blocks to be fused are decided, they are fused with weights); and
reconstructing the current block by applying weighting factors for the predicted sample values (Abstract and p. 2 disclose multiple IntraTMP matched blocks, selection of the best candidate matched blocks, and fusion of the selected blocks. Zhang states that once the blocks to be fused are decided, they are fused with weights).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Hue and Chen to add the teachings of Zhang as above, in order to produce a better overall predictor (Zhang, §2).
Regarding claim 9, Hue, Chen and Zhang disclose all the limitations of claim 8, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Hue does not explicitly disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising obtaining information for one or more coding levels indicating at least one of: the filter shape; a template area of the reference block; the template area of the current block; whether to use inherited filter coefficients from a previously decoded block; the filter coefficients inherited from the previously decoded block; or the weighting factors.
However, Chen from the same or similar endeavor of video coding discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising obtaining information for one or more coding levels indicating at least one of: the filter shape; a template area of the reference block; the template area of the current block; whether to use inherited filter coefficients from a previously decoded block; the filter coefficients inherited from the previously decoded block; or the weighting factors (¶[0113] defines multi-reference-line templates for the current and reference blocks. ¶[0115] states that a flag, lic_mrl_flag, indicating whether multi reference lines are applied for composing the template is signaled into the bitstream).
The motivation for combining Hue, Chen and Zhang has been discussed in connection with claim 1 and 8, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen.
Regarding claim 20, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the feature encoding method which is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in this claim merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Chen which recites a readable storage medium storing a bitstream (¶[0141] states that memory/storage can store items including the bitstream).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11 and 17-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 8-10, 12 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/335,432 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of claims 1, 2, 10, 11 and 17-20 in the present application is fully disclosed or would have been obvious from the subject matter of claims 1, 8-10, 12 and 20 of the referenced Application. Specifically, the differences between the claims are minor and do not result in a patentably distinct invention, as they merely involve variations in implementation that do not confer any unexpected results or inventive step. Accordingly, a terminal disclaimer is required to overcome this rejection.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM (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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on (571)272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights