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 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 16-20 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. Regarding the first four lines of claim 16, it is not clear how the “encoding the video sequence to form coded information included in the bitstream, and store the bitstream” is performed and what is performing it, especially it is recited prior that “the bitstream being obtained by receiving a video sequence”. Dependent claims 17-20 are rejected because of their dependency to claim 16. For the purpose of examination, the first four lines of claim 16 is interpreted as “[o]ne or more computer readable media storing a bitstream formed by encoding a received video sequence, wherein the encoding comprises:”.
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.
Claims 16-20 are 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 when the specification is silent (no special definition provided in the original disclosure), the BRI of computer readable media covers a signal per se. Examiner advises the applicant to amend the claim to recite the computer readable media is non-transitory in order to overcome the 101 issue.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0021871 A1 (“Racape”).
Regarding claim 1, Racape discloses a method for encoding a video sequence, the method comprising:
receiving a video sequence (e.g. see Fig. 13 showing encoder 100 receiving a video sequence, paragraphs [0181]-[0185]); and encoding the video sequence by:
dividing a video frame of the video sequence into a plurality of blocks (e.g. see Fig. 13 showing that picture to be encoded is partitioned (e.g. 102 in Fig. 13) and processed in units of, for example, CUs, paragraphs [0181]-[0185]);
determining a coding mode for a current block of the plurality of blocks (e.g. see the encoder decides (e.g. 105 in Fig. 13) which one of the intra mode or inter mode to use for encoding the unit, and indicates the intra/inter decision, paragraphs [0181]-[0185]), the coding mode being one of a plurality of pre-defined coding modes, and the plurality of predefined coding modes comprising at least a plurality of planar modes (e.g. see prediction mode of the current block is determined (from intra modes including planar horizontal mode, planar vertical mode and planar average modes), e.g. see at least paragraphs [0164], [0166]-[0167]; also see Table 4, paragraphs [0105]-[0111]);
generating a prediction block based at least in part on the coding mode (e.g. see prediction block, paragraphs [0181]-[0185]);
generating quantized residual coefficients based at least in part on a prediction residual, the prediction residual being a difference between the current block and the prediction block (e.g. see prediction residuals are calculated, for example, by subtracting (e.g. see 110 in Fig. 13) the predicted block from the original image block that is then transformed (e.g. 125 in Fig. 13) and quantized (e.g. 130 in Fig. 13), paragraphs [0181]-[0185]); and
performing entropy coding on the coding mode and the quantized residual coefficients to form at least a part of an output video bitstream (e.g. see quantized transform coefficients, as well as other syntax elements, are entropy coded (e.g. 145 in Fig. 13) to output a bitstream, paragraphs [0181]-[0185]).
Regarding claim 2, Racape further discloses further comprising: encoding a first syntax element in the video sequence to indicate whether one of the plurality of planar modes is used to predict samples in the current block (e.g. see at least extension flag, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0164], [0166]-[0167]; also see Table 4, paragraphs [0105]-[0111]), wherein the plurality of planar modes comprises at least a planar horizontal mode (e.g. see planar horizontal mode in Fig. 4, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0042]-[0044]), a planar vertical mode (e.g. see planar vertical mode in Fig. 5, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0045]-[0048]), and a planar average mode (e.g. see planar mode in Fig. 3, e.g. see at least paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Racape further discloses further comprising: in response to the first syntax element indicating the one of the plurality of planar modes is used, predicting the current block with the one of the plurality of planar modes (e.g. see at least extension flag, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0164], [0166]-[0167]; also see Table 4, paragraphs [0105]-[0111]; see predicting the current block or CU with one of the planar horizontal mode, planar vertical mode and planar mode if selected (see index of the selected mode) based on the extension flag being enabled).
Regarding claim 4, Racape further discloses further comprising: in response to the first syntax element indicating the one of the plurality of planar modes is used (e.g. see at least extension flag, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0164], [0166]-[0167]; also see Table 4, paragraphs [0105]-[0111]), encoding a second syntax element in the video sequence to indicate whether the planar average mode is used (e.g. see index corresponding to the planar mode, planar vertical mode or planar horizontal mode, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0164], [0166]-[0167]; also see Table 4, paragraphs [0105]-[0111]); and
when the second syntax element indicates that the planar average mode is not used, encoding a third syntax element to indicate which one of the planar vertical mode and the planar horizontal mode is used (e.g. see index corresponding to planar vertical mode or planar horizontal mode, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0164], [0166]-[0167]; also see Table 4, paragraphs [0105]-[0111]).
Regarding claim 5, Racape further discloses further comprising: determining whether to perform a position dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC) process to predicted values of samples in the current block when the one of the plurality of planar modes is used to predict the samples in the current block (e.g. see PDPC, paragraph [0041]); performing the PDPC process when the planar average mode is used; and predicting the samples in the current block without performing the PDPC process when the planar horizontal mode or the planar vertical mode is used (e.g. see planar mode (indexed as mode 0) consist of averaging of two interpolations: a horizontal interpolation and a vertical interpolation that is followed with PDPC to smooth out boundary samples; in the planar horizontal mode, only the horizontal interpolation is used and it is followed with a simple filtering; similarly, in the planar vertical mode, only vertical interpolation is used and it is followed with a simple filtering, paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 6, Racape further discloses further comprising: using only a left reference sample and an upper right reference sample when predicting a current sample in the current block using the planar horizontal mode (e.g. see planar horizontal mode in Fig. 4, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0042]-[0044]); using only an upper reference sample and a bottom left reference sample when predicting the current sample using the planar vertical mode (e.g. see planar vertical mode in Fig. 5, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0045]-[0048]); and using the left reference sample, the upper right reference sample, the upper reference sample and the bottom left reference sample when predicting the current sample using the planar average mode (e.g. see planar mode in Fig. 3, e.g. see at least paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 7, Racape further discloses further comprising: using only a horizontal linear interpolation when predicting a current sample in the current block using the planar horizontal mode (e.g. see horizontal interpolation, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0041]-[0044]); using only a vertical linear interpolation when predicting the current sample using the planar vertical mode (e.g. see vertical interpolation, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0041], [0045]-[0048]); and using the horizontal linear interpolation and the vertical linear interpolation when predicting the current sample using the planar average mode (e.g. see averaging two interpolations: horizontal interpolation and vertical interpolation, e.g. see at least paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Racape further discloses further comprising: using a flag to indicate which coding mode of the plurality of predefined coding modes is used based at least in part on a MPM list when the plurality of predefined coding modes is supported; or using an implicit method to determine which coding mode is used for the current block when the plurality of predefined coding modes is supported (e.g. see MPM flag and index, e.g. see paragraph [0166]; also see Table 4, paragraphs [0105]-[0111]).
Regarding claims 11-15, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0016537 A1 (“Karczewicz”).
Regarding claim 16, Karczewicz discloses one or more computer readable media storing a bitstream, the bitstream being obtained by receiving a video sequence, and encoding the video sequence to form coded information included in the bitstream, and store the bitstream, wherein the encoding comprises: dividing a video frame of the video sequence into a plurality of blocks; determining a coding mode for a current block of the plurality of blocks, the coding mode being one of a plurality of pre-defined coding modes, and the plurality of predefined coding modes comprising at least a plurality of planar modes; generating a prediction block based at least in part on the coding mode; generating quantized residual coefficients based at least in part on a prediction residual, the prediction residual being a difference between the current block and the prediction block; and performing entropy coding on the coding mode and the quantized residual coefficients to form at least a part of the bitstream (e.g. see at least 34 in Fig. 1, paragraphs [0033], [0038]; based on the interpretation as noted above, the one or more computer readable media merely serve as a support for the bitstream, see MPEP 2111.05. No patentable weight is given to the bitstream).
Regarding claim 17, Karczewicz further discloses wherein the encoding further comprises:
encoding a first syntax element in the video sequence to indicate whether one of the plurality of planar modes is used to predict samples in the current block, wherein the plurality of planar modes comprises at least a planar horizontal mode, a planar vertical mode, and a planar average mode (e.g. see at least 34 in Fig. 1, paragraphs [0033], [0038]; based on the interpretation as noted above, the one or more computer readable media merely serve as a support for the bitstream, see MPEP 2111.05. No patentable weight is given to the bitstream).
Regarding claim 18, Karczewicz further discloses wherein the encoding further comprises:
in response to the first syntax element indicating the one of the plurality of planar modes is used, predicting the current block with the one of the plurality of planar modes (e.g. see at least 34 in Fig. 1, paragraphs [0033], [0038]; based on the interpretation as noted above, the one or more computer readable media merely serve as a support for the bitstream, see MPEP 2111.05. No patentable weight is given to the bitstream).
Regarding claim 19, Karczewicz further discloses wherein the encoding further comprises:
in response to the first syntax element indicating the one of the plurality of planar modes is used, encoding a second syntax element in the video sequence to indicate whether the planar average mode is used; and when the second syntax element indicates that the planar average mode is not used, encoding a third syntax element to indicate which one of the planar vertical mode and the planar horizontal mode is used (e.g. see at least 34 in Fig. 1, paragraphs [0033], [0038]; based on the interpretation as noted above, the one or more computer readable media merely serve as a support for the bitstream, see MPEP 2111.05. No patentable weight is given to the bitstream).
Regarding claim 20, Karczewicz further discloses wherein the encoding further comprises:
determining whether to perform a position dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC) process to predicted values of samples in the current block when the one of the plurality of planar modes is used to predict the samples in the current block; performing the PDPC process when the planar average mode is used; and predicting the samples in the current block without performing the PDPC process when the planar horizontal mode or the planar vertical mode is used (e.g. see at least 34 in Fig. 1, paragraphs [0033], [0038]; based on the interpretation as noted above, the one or more computer readable media merely serve as a support for the bitstream, see MPEP 2111.05. No patentable weight is given to the bitstream).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racape in view of US 2024/0323423 A1 (“Xu).
Regarding claim 8, although Racape discloses wherein the horizontal interpolation result and the vertical interpolation result are associated with weights when weighting is applied for planar prediction (e.g. see averaging two interpolations: horizontal interpolation and vertical interpolation, e.g. see at least paragraph [0041]), it is noted Racape differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose different weights. Xu however, teaches different weights (e.g. see weights determined according to a location of the current sample in the current block, e.g. see paragraphs [0119]-[0122]).
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 Racape and Xu before him/her, to modify the intra prediction mode extension of Racape to include Xu’s teaching in order to take into account location of the current sample for a more accurate prediction.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Racape in view of US 2022/0345701 A1 (“Yang”).
Regarding claim 9, although Racape discloses the planar horizontal mode and the planar vertical mode, it is noted Racape differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose
wherein the planar horizontal mode and the planar vertical mode are applicable only to luma blocks when one or more of Multiple Reference Line (MRL), Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP), and Template-based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD) are disabled. Yang however, teaches wherein the planar horizontal mode and the planar vertical mode are applicable only to luma blocks when one or more of Multiple Reference Line (MRL), Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP), and Template-based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD) are disabled (e.g. see planar mode excluded from intra prediction modes in case where a nonzero reference line index is signaled, e.g. see paragraphs [0141]-[0142]; from this teaching, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no difficulty recognizing to include and apply the planar mode for zero reference line, e.g. when multiple reference line is disabled).
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 Racape and Yang before him/her, to modify the intra prediction mode extension of Racape to include Yang’s teaching in order to ensure certain intra-picture prediction use the nearest reference line to efficiently implement intra prediction.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,457,325 in view of Racape. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application and the patent are substantially similar and obvious variants of one another. For example:
U.S. Patent No. 12,457,325
Instant Application: 19/346253
Note: underlined fonts mean differences in instant application
1. A method comprising:
1. A method for encoding a video sequence, the method comprising:
receiving a video sequence; and encoding the video sequence by:
dividing a video frame of the video sequence into a plurality of blocks;
predicting a current block using a planar mode, wherein:
the planar mode comprises: a planar horizontal mode, a planar vertical mode, or a planar average mode; and
the planar mode is determined for the current block based at least in part on a comparison involving a ratio between a sum of absolute values of vertical gradients associated with the current block and a sum of absolute values of horizontal gradients associated with the current block, and at least one of a first predefined threshold or a second predefined threshold.
determining a coding mode for a current block of the plurality of blocks, the coding mode being one of a plurality of pre-defined coding modes, and the plurality of predefined coding modes comprising at least a plurality of planar modes;
generating a prediction block based at least in part on the coding mode;
generating quantized residual coefficients based at least in part on a prediction residual, the prediction residual being a difference between the current block and the prediction block; and
performing entropy coding on the coding mode and the quantized residual coefficients to form at least a part of an output video bitstream.
Although the Patent claims meet “determining a coding mode for a current block of the plurality of blocks, the coding mode being one of a plurality of pre-defined coding modes, and the plurality of predefined coding modes comprising at least a plurality of planar modes; generating a prediction block based at least in part on the coding mode;” as mapped above, it does not specifically claim “receiving a video sequence; and encoding the video sequence by: dividing a video frame of the video sequence into a plurality of blocks; generating quantized residual coefficients based at least in part on a prediction residual, the prediction residual being a difference between the current block and the prediction block; and performing entropy coding on the coding mode and the quantized residual coefficients to form at least a part of an output video bitstream.” However, these limitations are notoriously well-known in video compression standards. For example, Racape as mapped above discloses these limitations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of the Patent with Racape in order to implement the encoding/decoding of video according to standards, as well as improve the prediction efficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al., US 2022/0201281 A1, Decoder side intra mode derivation for most probable mode list construction in video coding
Shen et al., US 2017/0302962 A1, Rapid selection method for video intra prediction mode and apparatus thereof
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
