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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a signal per se, in the form “a computer-readable medium comprising a performable instruction”.
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 2, 7, 8, 11, 16, and 17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 7, 8, 11, 16, and 17 all include an “and/or” limitation, which is indefinite language because it is not clear whether the limitations defined by “and/or” are required (“and”) or are an alternative to the preceding feature (“or”).
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 1-6, 9-15, and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,418,660, in further view of Lin, and in view of Zhang. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘660 patent claims are narrower than the instant claims, with the exception that the instant claim recite a syntactic element including a prediction pattern for a current to-be-decoded block. However, this limitation is made obvious by the prior art, Lin, which discloses in Section 2, 3rd para. “IN the decoder the input bitstream is parsed by CU coding type parse to get the CU_coding_type_flag. Including such prediction pattern information in a bitstream would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date, in order to facilitate decoder-side operations.
19329550- Claim 1
Claim 1- 12,418,660
A video decoding method based on strings, comprising:
A method, comprising:
obtaining a bitstream, parsing syntactic elements from the bitstream, the syntactic elements including a prediction pattern for a current to-be-decoded block; and
determining a current string in a coding unit (CU) of an image frame, the current
string including one or more pixels;
determining, based on a first pixel in the current string, a reference matching pixel of the first pixel by searching a searching area, the searching area including a plurality of matching pixels;
determining, based on the reference matching pixel and matching patterns, a count of matching pixels in each of a plurality of groups, corresponding to the matching patterns, of the current string; and
determining, based on counts of matching pixels in the plurality of groups corresponding to the matching patterns, a target prediction of the current string;
for a to-be-decoded string, obtaining a string vector (SV) and a flip pattern of the to-be-decoded string from the syntactic elements;
obtaining a decoded string by decoding the to-be-decoded string based on the flipped matching string.
wherein the matching patterns include a flip pattern, and the determining the target prediction of the current string includes:
obtaining at least one flipped matching string by adjusting a position of at least one of matching pixels in the target prediction of the current string based on the flip pattern, the flip pattern including at least one of a symmetric flip pattern, a multi-axis flip pattern, or a complete flip pattern;
comparing a first cost between the current string and the target prediction of the current string with a second cost between the current string and the at least one flipped matching string; and
selecting, based on the comparison, one corresponding to the smallest of the first cost and the second cost from the target prediction and the at least one flipped matching string as the target prediction of the current string;
wherein the flip pattern is the multi-axis flip pattern, and the adjusting the position of at least one of matching pixels in the target prediction of the current string based on the flip pattern includes:
selecting a plurality of discontinuous matching pixels in a same pixel row of the target prediction of the current string as flip axes;
flipping a part of matching pixels between two adjacent flip axes in the flip axes according to one of the two adjacent flip axes close the part of pixels; and
flipping the other part of matching pixels between the two adjacent flip axes according to the other of the two adjacent flip axes.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ‘660 patent, in view of Lin, in further view of Zhou.
In an analogous art directed to string vector prediction, Zhou discloses a syntax element indicating whether an adaptive loop filter is applied in the decoding process, which filter smooths discontinuities across picture boundaries. See Zhou [0112].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate an adaptive loop filter and a syntax element indicating whether such filter is applied, in the context of the string vector prediction disclosed in the combination of Lin in view of Zhang, in order to smooth discontinuities in the string vector occurring at block boundaries. See Zhou [0112].
Claims 3, 6, 12, and 15, are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ‘660 patent, in view of Lin, in further view of Zhang.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends are disclosed in the combination of the ‘660 patent claim 1, in view of Lin. This combination does not disclose the limitations of claim 3. However, Zhang discloses these limitations in an analogous art: the method of claim 1, wherein the flip pattern is a symmetric flip pattern, and the
obtaining a flipped matching string by flipping the matching string according to the flip pattern includes:
selecting at least one pixel in the matching string of the to-be-decoded string as a flip axis (Central axis is by default selected as the flip axis.);
flipping one or more pixels in the matching string located at a first side of the flip axis to a second side of the flip axis (See figure 4 and 5, noting locations of pixels before and after flipping operation); and
flipping one or more pixels in the matching string located at the second side of the flip axis to the first side of the flip axis (See figure 4 and 5, noting locations of pixels before and after flipping operation.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the flipping technique disclosed in Zhang for IBC as part of a string vector prediction of the kind disclosed in Lin. Doing so would expand the capacity of string vector prediction for prediction scenarios involving image symmetries such as horizontal, or vertical symmetry.
See Zhang, figures 2 and 3 for examples of symmetric image content. The same flipping applied to pixels within a block could have been applied to blocks in a string vector, by comparing the forward and flipped string vector coding encoding costs. Incorporating this feature would have had predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date, and would have had the benefit of improving coding efficiency over string vector prediction without flipping. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends are disclosed in the combination of the ‘660 patent claim 1, in view of Lin. This combination does not disclose the limitations of claim 3. However, Zhang discloses these limitations in an analogous art: the method of claim 1, wherein the flip pattern is a complete flip pattern, and the obtaining a flipped matching string by flipping the matching string according to the flip pattern includes:
completely reversing orders of pixels in the matching string of the to-be-decoded
string (See figures 4 and 5, noting that the pixels in both the vertical and horizontal flipping are completely mirrored (completely reversed) in their order about a flipping axis.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the flipping technique disclosed in Zhang for IBC as part of a string vector prediction of the kind disclosed in Lin. Doing so would expand the capacity of string vector prediction for prediction scenarios involving image symmetries such as horizontal, or vertical symmetry.
See Zhang, figures 2 and 3 for examples of symmetric image content. The same flipping applied to pixels within a block could have been applied to blocks in a string vector, by comparing the forward and flipped string vector coding encoding costs. Incorporating this feature would have had predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date, and would have had the benefit of improving coding efficiency over string vector prediction without flipping. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for claims 3 and 6, respectively.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of the ‘660 patent, in view of Lin.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends are disclosed in the combination of the ‘660 patent claim 1, in view of Lin. This combination, specifically Lin, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the to-be-decoded string is a cross-line string that includes at least two-pixel rows (See figure 5 in Lin, noting the reference PRB string having four pixel rows within it.), the syntactic elements do not include a syntactic element corresponding to a unit basis vector of the to-be-decoded string.
Claim 18 is rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for claim 9.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting for the same reasons of obviousness as given above with respect to claim 1.
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, 3, 6, 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al., “Screen Content Coding with Primary and Secondary Reference Buffers for String Matching and Copying.” December 2015 Vol.13 No.4 ZTE COMMUNICATIONS. in view of Zhang, “Symmetric intra block copy” Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and 1S0/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11. Document: JCTVC-Q0082.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses: a video decoding method based on strings, comprising:
obtaining a bitstream, parsing syntactic elements from the bitstream, the syntactic elements including a prediction pattern for a current to-be-decoded block (See Section 2, 3rd para. “IN the decoder the input bitstream is parsed by CU coding type parse to get the CU_coding_type_flag.); and
in response to determining that the prediction pattern for the current to-be-decoded block is a string prediction (SP) pattern (See 3rd para. of Section 2, where it discloses: “If the CU is coded by the string-matching technique”- the CU coding type parse checks whether string matching is performed.), performing a following process:
for a to-be-decoded string, obtaining a string vector (SV) (See 4th para. of Section 2, disclosing that string-matching coding substystem uses matching modes to obtain string vectors) and
Lin does not disclose: [obtaining] a flip pattern of the to-be-decoded string from the syntactic elements;
determining a matching string of the to-be-decoded string based on the SV;
obtaining a flipped matching string by flipping the matching string according to the flip pattern; and
obtaining a decoded string by decoding the to-be-decoded string based on the flipped matching string.
However, Zhang, in an analogous art directed to Intra Block Copy (IBC) Prediction, suggests these features:
[obtaining] a flip pattern of the to-be-decoded string from the syntactic elements;
determining a matching string of the to-be-decoded string based on the SV (See figure 4, showing a flipped reference block for symmetric intra-block copy (IBC) prediction.);
obtaining a flipped matching string by flipping the matching string according to the flip pattern; and
obtaining a decoded string by decoding the to-be-decoded string based on the flipped matching string.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the flipping technique disclosed in Zhang for IBC as part of a string vector prediction of the kind disclosed in Lin. Doing so would expand the capacity of string vector prediction for prediction scenarios involving image symmetries such as horizontal, or vertical symmetry.
See Zhang, figures 2 and 3 for examples of symmetric image content. The same flipping applied to pixels within a block could have been applied to blocks in a string vector, by comparing the forward and flipped string vector coding encoding costs. Incorporating this feature would have had predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date, and would have had the benefit of improving coding efficiency over string vector prediction without flipping. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lin view of Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends. This combination, specifically Zhang, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the flip pattern is a symmetric flip pattern, and the
obtaining a flipped matching string by flipping the matching string according to the flip pattern includes:
selecting at least one pixel in the matching string of the to-be-decoded string as a flip axis;
flipping one or more pixels in the matching string located at a first side of the flip axis to a second side of the flip axis (See figure 4 and 5, noting locations of pixels before and after flipping operation); and
flipping one or more pixels in the matching string located at the second side of the flip axis to the first side of the flip axis (See figure 4 and 5, noting locations of pixels before and after flipping operation.).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lin view of Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends. This combination, specifically Zhang, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the flip pattern is a complete flip pattern, and the obtaining a flipped matching string by flipping the matching string according to the flip pattern includes:
completely reversing orders of pixels in the matching string of the to-be-decoded
string (See figures 4 and 5, noting that the pixels in both the vertical and horizontal flipping are completely mirrored (completely reversed) in their order about a flipping axis.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lin view of Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends. This combination, specifically Lin, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the to-be-decoded string is a cross-line string that includes at least two pixel rows (See figure 5 in Lin, noting the reference PRB string having four pixel rows within it.), the syntactic elements do not include a syntactic element corresponding to a unit basis vector of the to-be-decoded string.
Decoding system claims 10, 12, 15, and 18 are drawn to a video decoding system implementing the corresponding method claimed in claims 1, 3, 6, and 9, respectively. Therefore, apparatus claims 10, 12, 15, and 18 correspond to method claims 1, 3, 6, and 9, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Computer-readable medium claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for claim 1.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Zhang, in further view of Zhou, US 2019/0208217 A1
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lin view of Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends. This combination does not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to determining that syntactic elements corresponding to the to-be-decoded string include a flag indicating to perform string prediction refinement (SPR),
smoothing intra-string pixels and/or string boundaries of the decoded string corresponding to the to-be-decoded string.
However, in an analogous art directed to string vector prediction, Zhou discloses a syntax element indicating whether an adaptive loop filter is applied in the decoding process, which filter smooths discontinuities across picture boundaries. See Zhou [0112].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate an adaptive loop filter and a syntax element indicating whether such filter is applied, in the context of the string vector prediction disclosed in the combination of Lin in view of Zhang, in order to smooth discontinuities in the string vector occurring at block boundaries. See Zhou [0112].
Decoding system claim 11 is drawn to an apparatus implementing the corresponding method claimed in method claim 2. Therefore, decoding system claim 11 corresponds to method claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art does not disclose or suggest:
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the prior art does not disclose or suggest: the method of claim 3, wherein the to-be-decoded string includes a plurality of pixel rows, the selecting at least one pixel in the matching string of the to-be-decoded string as a flip axis includes:
selecting one pixel in each pixel row as a flip axis for the each pixel row.
The closest prior art, Zhang, discloses performing flipping operations for symmetric intra block copy (IBC), (See figure 4 and 5). However, there is no disclosure or suggestion to modify the flip axis for the block; the flip axis is by default set to be symmetric about a horizontal or vertical axis of the block, depending on the type of flipping performed. Nor either is there suggestion to perform a pixel row-by-row axis selection, as this feature inheres to string vector prediction, not to IBC.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the prior art does not disclose or suggest: the method of claim 1, wherein the flip pattern is a multi-axis flip pattern, and the obtaining a flipped matching string by flipping the matching string according to the flip pattern includes:
selecting a plurality of discontinuous pixels in the matching string in a same pixel row of the to-be-decoded string as flip axes;
flipping a part of pixels between two adjacent flip axes according to one of the two adjacent flip axes close the part of pixels; and
flipping the other part of pixels between the two adjacent flip axes according to the other of the two adjacent flip axes.
Similar to claims 4 and 13, the closest prior art, Zhang, only discloses flipping for IBC about a central horizontal or vertical axis of the block to be flipped, but does not disclose or suggest or selecting other types of flip axes, or multiple different flip axes, as claimed in claim 5.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the prior art does not disclose or suggest determining whether a vertical/horizontal component of the string vector of the to-be-decoded string is less than 1, “in response to determining that the vertical component of the SV of the to-be-decoded string is 0, parsing a difference between an absolute value of the horizontal component of the SV of the to-be-decoded string from the bitstream and a second parameter offset, wherein:
in response to that a length of the to-be-decoded string is less than a width of the CU corresponding to the to-be-decoded string, determining that the second parameter offset is equal to the length of the to-be-decoded string, and
in response to that the length of the to-be-decoded string is greater than or equal to the width of the CU corresponding to the to-be-decoded string, determining that the second parameter offset is equal to a first parameter offset plus 1, the first parameter offset being less than or equal to the absolute value of the horizontal component of the SV of the to-be-decoded string and the width of the CU.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the prior art does not disclose or suggest: in response to determining that the vertical component of the SV of the to-be-decoded string is not less than 1 and/or the horizontal component of the SV of the to-be-decoded string is not equal to 0, determining whether the vertical component of the SV of the to-be-decoded string is non-zero; and
in response to determining that the vertical component of the SV of the to-be-decoded string is 0, determining whether an index of a pixel row where a starting position of the to-be-decoded string is located is an odd number; and
in response to determining that the index of the pixel row where the starting position of the to-be-decoded string is located is not an odd number, parsing a difference between an absolute value of the horizontal component of the SV of the to-be-decoded string from the bitstream and a second parameter offset, wherein:
in response to that a length of the to-be-decoded string is less than a width of a coding unit (CU) corresponding to the to-be-decoded string, determining that the second parameter offset is equal to the length of the to-be-decoded string, and
in response to that the length of the to-be-decoded string is greater than or equal to the width of the CU corresponding to the to-be-decoded string, determining that the second parameter offset is equal to a first parameter offset plus 1, the first parameter offset being less than or equal to the absolute value of the horizontal component of the SV of the corresponding to the to-be-decoded string and the width
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights