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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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)(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(s) 1-5, 8, 11-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2018/0270502 A1 (“Mukherjee”).
Regarding claim 1, Mukherjee discloses a method of decoding a video from a data stream using block-based predictive decoding using a video decoder, the method comprising, for a predetermined block, reading first prediction information from the data stream (e.g. see 1302 in Fig. 13 decode, from an encoded bitstream, an indicator that multi-level compound prediction was used to encode the current block, paragraph [0104]); determining, based on the first prediction information, a first prediction signal (p1) (e.g. see 1304 in Fig. 13 generate a first compound predictor by combining at least two predictor blocks for the current block, paragraph [0105]); deriving a number K from the data stream (e.g. see at 1306, the process 1300 generates a second predictor… for example, the indicator identifies that the second predictor is a compound predictor, paragraphs [0106]-[0107]; the indicator can identify a tri-prediction or a quad-prediction compound prediction type… indicator of quad-prediction can identify that the second predictor is a compound predictor… indicator of tri-prediction can identify that the second predictor is not a compound predictor, paragraph [0095]); determining K further prediction signals (p2 … pk+1) and for each of the K further prediction signals, a composition weight (e.g. see for tri-prediction type, one additional predictor and corresponding weight are determined such as shown in Fig. 9 illustrating one additional predictor 910 and corresponding weight W1_1 are determined; also see for quad-prediction type, two additional predictors and corresponding weights are determined such as shown in Fig. 11 illustrating two additional predictors 1106 and 1108 and corresponding weights W0_2 and W03 are determined to determine compound predictor 1112 and corresponding weight W1_1); and predicting the predetermined block based on the first prediction signal and the K further prediction signals and the composition weights therefor (e.g. see for tri-prediction type such as shown in Fig. 9, a final compound predictor 912 is generated to predict the current block; also see for quad-prediction type such as shown in Fig. 11, a final compound predictor 1114 is generated to predict the current block).
Regarding claim 2, Mukherjee further discloses wherein predicting the predetermined block comprises predicting the predetermined block by sequentially adding each of the K further prediction signals to the first prediction signal with weighting the respective further prediction signal with the composition weight for the respective further prediction signal and weighting an intermediate sum of the sequential addition, to which the respective further prediction signal is added, with one minus the composition weight (e.g. see at least for tri-prediction type such as shown in Fig. 9, a final compound predictor 912 is generated to predict the current block by adding a weighted predictor 910 using weight W1_1 to a weighted first compound predictor 908 using weight W1_0; and see, weights of the two predictors can be w0 and (1-w0) where w0 is a value between zero and one, paragraphs [0061], [0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Mukherjee further discloses further comprising: deriving a contribution weight for each of the K further prediction signals from the data stream (e.g. see combination technique (such as weights) can be signaled from the encoder to be decoded and used by the decoder, paragraph [0105]) in a manner so that the contribution weight assumes one value out of a value domain which consists of a number of values which is equal for the K further prediction signals (e.g. see at least weights of the two predictors can be w0 and (1-w0) where w0 is a value between zero and one, paragraphs [0061], [0076]).
Regarding claim 4, Mukherjee further discloses wherein the value domain is equal for the K further prediction signals (e.g. see any inter, intra, or combinations of inter and intra predictors can be used at any level, paragraphs [0088]-[0089], and see weighting at different levels can be the same, paragraphs [0061], [0076]).
Regarding claim 5, Mukherjee further discloses wherein the value domain comprises at least one value outside [0;1] (e.g. see other values for the weight w0 are possible. For example, the weight w0 can be a number between 0 and 16, paragraphs [0061], [0076]).
Regarding claim 8, Mukherjee further discloses further comprising: reading for each of the K further prediction signals, a further set of at least one prediction parameter for the predetermined block from the data stream, and use the further set of at least one prediction parameter to determine the respective further prediction signal (e.g. see indicator (e.g., one or more syntax elements), paragraphs [0095]-[0096], [0104]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 19, Mukherjee further discloses a non-transitory digital storage medium having a computer program stored thereon to perform, when the computer program is run by a computer, the method of decoding a video accordingly to claim1 (e.g. see paragraphs [0005]-[0006]).
Regarding claims 11-15, 18, 20, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of US 2019/0037213 A1 (“Hermansson”).
Regarding claim 6, although Mukherjee discloses wherein sequentially adding each of the K further prediction signals comprises a sum between the intermediate sum weighted with 1 minus with the contribution value and the respective further prediction signal weighted with the contribution value for a subset of the K further prediction signals (e.g. see at least for tri-prediction type such as shown in Fig. 9, a final compound predictor 912 is generated to predict the current block by adding a weighted predictor 910 using weight W1_1 to a weighted first compound predictor 908 using weight W1_0; and see, weights of the two predictors can be w0 and (1-w0) where w0 is a value between zero and one, paragraphs [0061], [0076]), it is noted Mukherjee differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose subjecting to a clipping and/or rounding operation. Hermansson however, teaches subjecting to a clipping (e.g. see clipping, paragraph [0089]) and/or rounding operation (e.g. see rounding, paragraph [0088]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Mukherjee and Hermansson before him/her, to modify the Multi-level compound prediction of Mukherjee with the teaching of Hermansson in order to ensure that each image element is within the range of valid image elements and/or implement in fixed point and not floating point.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations to the claim above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 7, 9-10, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mukherjee in view of US 2016/0191920 A1 (“Kim”).
Regarding claim 7, although Mukherjee discloses further comprising: deriving from the first prediction information information and, depending on the information, inferring a set of at least one prediction parameter from a further first prediction information of a neighboring block, and use the set of at least one prediction parameter to determine the first prediction signal, or reading a set (130) of at least one prediction parameter for the predetermined block from the data stream, and use the set of at least one prediction parameter to determine the first prediction signal (e.g. see decodes, from an encoded bitstream, an indicator… can be one or more syntax elements that directs the decoder to generate a prediction block for the current block using multi-level compound prediction… the indicator can include syntax that identifies one or more reference frames and corresponding motion vectors, one or more intra-prediction modes, or any combination thereof, for each of the predictor blocks, and based on the indicator, at 1304 in Fig. 13 generate a first compound predictor by combining at least two predictor blocks for the current block, paragraphs [0104]-[0105]), it is noted Mukherjee differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose deriving a merge information and, depending on the merge information, inferring a set of at least one prediction parameter from a further first prediction information of a neighboring block, or reading a set (130) of at least one prediction parameter for the predetermined block from the data stream. Kim however, teaches deriving a merge information and, depending on the merge information, inferring a set of at least one prediction parameter from a further first prediction information of a neighboring block, or reading a set (130) of at least one prediction parameter for the predetermined block from the data stream (e.g. see merge flag and merge index that indicate whether the current block 1610 in Fig. 16 is predicted in merge mode to use motion information of the selected merge candidate, e.g. see at least paragraph [0179]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Mukherjee and Kim before him/her, to modify the multi-level compound prediction of Mukherjee with Kim in order to efficiently encode/decode video data by using merge mode that is determined with increased speed and reduced amount of calculation.
Regarding claim 9, although Mukherjee discloses wherein K is one, and wherein the method further comprises: deriving from the first prediction information information and, depending on the information, inferring a set of at least one prediction parameter from a further first prediction information of a neighboring block, and use the set of at least one prediction parameter to determine the first prediction signal, and read for the further prediction signal a further set of at least one prediction parameter for the predetermined block from the data stream, and use the further set of at least one prediction parameter to determine the further prediction signal; or reading a set of at least one prediction parameter and a further set of at least one prediction parameter for the predetermined block from the data stream, and use the set of at least one prediction parameter to determine the first prediction signal and the further set of at least one prediction parameter to determine the further prediction signal (e.g. see decodes, from an encoded bitstream, an indicator… can be one or more syntax elements that directs the decoder to generate a prediction block for the current block using multi-level compound prediction… the indicator can include syntax that identifies one or more reference frames and corresponding motion vectors, one or more intra-prediction modes, or any combination thereof, for each of the predictor blocks, and based on the indicator, at 1304 in Fig. 13 generate a first compound predictor by combining at least two predictor blocks for the current block, paragraphs [0104]-[0105]), it is noted Mukherjee differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose deriving a merge information and, depending on the merge information, inferring a set of at least one prediction parameter from a further first prediction information of a neighboring block, and read for the further prediction signal a further set of at least one prediction parameter for the predetermined block from the data stream; or reading a set of at least one prediction parameter and a further set of at least one prediction parameter for the predetermined block from the data stream, and use the set of at least one prediction parameter to determine the further set of at least one prediction parameter. Kim however, teaches deriving a merge information and, depending on the merge information, inferring a set of at least one prediction parameter from a further first prediction information of a neighboring block, and read for the further prediction signal a further set of at least one prediction parameter for the predetermined block from the data stream; or reading a set of at least one prediction parameter and a further set of at least one prediction parameter for the predetermined block from the data stream, and use the set of at least one prediction parameter to determine the further set of at least one prediction parameter (e.g. see merge flag and merge index that indicate whether the current block 1610 in Fig. 16 is predicted in merge mode to use motion information of the selected merge candidate, e.g. see at least paragraph [0179]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 7 applies here.
Regarding claim 10, Mukherjee further discloses wherein the first prediction signal is an inter predicted signal and the further prediction signal is an intra predicted signal (e.g. see combining any number of intra, inter, or compound predictors, paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to the claim above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0007272 A1, Tourapis et al., Techniques of multi-hypothesis motion compensation
US 11,363,253 B2, Chen et al., Systems and methods for generalized multi-hypothesis prediction for video coding
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights