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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/11/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/05/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities: acronym “TM” is not defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. US 2021/0297703 A1, hereafter Li.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of video coding (video coding) [0002], the method comprising:
receiving input data associated with a current block, wherein the input data comprises pixel data to be encoded at an encoder side or data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side (block data) [FIG. 6], wherein the current block inherits an inherited MV (Motion Vector) from an inherited block (when a CU is coded in a merge mode, an LIC flag can be copied from neighboring blocks of the CU, in a way similar to motion information copy in a merge mode) [0143];
deriving an LIC (Local Illumination Compensation) prediction candidate with inherited LIC parameters inherited from LIC parameters of the inherited block (when the current block is coded in an inter merge/skip mode, the scaling parameter and offset parameter of the LWP can be inherited from a merge candidate of the current block) [0179]; and
encoding or decoding the current block using a candidate list comprising the LIC candidate (affine merge candidate list; coded video sequence) [0128; FIG. 6], wherein when the LIC candidate is selected for the current block, a predictor for the current block is generated by applying the inherited LIC parameters to a reference block (the LWP can derive a prediction output of a CU from a reference block of the CU; when the current block is coded in an inter merge/skip mode, the scaling parameter and offset parameter of the LWP can be inherited from a merge candidate of the current block) [0158; 0179].
Regarding claim 2, Li addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Li further discloses the inherited LIC parameters are used to guide derivation of current LIC parameters for the current block (when the current block is coded in an inter merge/skip mode, the scaling parameter and offset parameter of the LWP can be inherited from a merge candidate of the current block) [0179].
Claim 5 is drawn to an apparatus adapted to implement the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite one or more electronics or processors, which Li also teaches (one or more processors) [0119].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Zhang et al. “Non-EE2: Update on IBC-LIC Model Merge Mode”, hereafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 6, Li discloses a method of video coding, the method (video coding) [0002] comprising:
receiving input data associated with a current block, wherein the input data comprises pixel data to be encoded at an encoder side or data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side (block data) [FIG. 6], wherein the current block is inter coded (the prediction information indicates an inter prediction mode for the current block; local illumination compensation (LIC) is used for inter coded CUs) [0023; 0141];
generating a candidate list (the affine MVP candidate list can be generated by using the following four types of CPMB candidate in order; when the merge candidate list is constructed, the LIC flag can be inherited from the neighboring blocks for merge candidates [0138; 0149],
encoding or decoding the current block using the candidate list (affine merge candidate list; coded video sequence) [0128; FIG. 6].
However, Li fails to explicitly disclose generating an LIC (Local Illumination Compensation) candidate list, wherein the LIC candidate list comprises first LIC parameters associated with one or more first LIC models for one or more spatial neighbouring blocks, second LIC parameters associated with one or more second LIC models for one or more non-adjacent neighbouring blocks, third LIC parameters associated with one or more third LIC models for one or more temporal neighbouring blocks, fourth LIC parameters associated with one or more fourth LIC models for one or more history-based blocks, or a combination thereof.
Zhang, in an analogous environment, discloses generating an LIC (Local Illumination Compensation) candidate list (model candidate list) [section 2], wherein the LIC candidate list comprises
first LIC parameters associated with one or more first LIC models for one or more spatial neighbouring blocks (spatial adjacent) [section 2],
second LIC parameters associated with one or more second LIC models for one or more non-adjacent neighbouring blocks (non-adjacent neighbors) [section 2],
third LIC parameters associated with one or more third LIC models for one or more temporal neighbouring blocks (collected from the previously coded IBC-LIC and IBC-LIC model merge modes) [section 2]
fourth LIC parameters associated with one or more fourth LIC models for one or more history-based blocks, or a combination thereof (history candidates) [section 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the LIC candidate list, as disclosed by Zhang, with the invention disclosed by Li, the motivation being increased performance [abstract].
Regarding claim 7, Li and Zhang address all of the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above.
Li further discloses a target LIC candidate is selected from the LIC candidate list for the current block and a predictor for the current block is generated by applying LIC parameters associated with the target LIC candidate to a reference block (the LWP can derive a prediction output of a CU from a reference block of the CU; when the current block is coded in an inter merge/skip mode, the scaling parameter and offset parameter of the LWP can be inherited from a merge candidate of the current block) [0158; 0179].
Regarding claim 8, Li and Zhang address all of the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above.
Zhang further discloses the LIC candidate list further comprises one or more pre-defined LIC parameters (default models) [section 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the LIC candidate list, as disclosed by Zhang, with the invention disclosed by Li, the motivation being increased performance [abstract].
Regarding claim 9, Li and Zhang addresses all of the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above.
Li further discloses an index is signalled to indicate a target LIC candidate selected from the LIC candidate list (an index indicating one of the set of values for the respective parameter; reference index to predict the sample values of each block; an index can be signaled to indicate one CPMV to be used for the current CU) [0029; 0095; 0129].
Regarding claim 10, Li and Zhang addresses all of the features with respect to claim 6 as outlined above.
Zhang further discloses if a reference block is coded by multi-model LIC, multiple LIC models associated with the reference block are inserted into the LIC candidate list (when an IBC-LIC model candidate is a multi-model IBC-LIC block, the parameters from two linear models and classification threshold are inherited accordingly) [section 2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the LIC candidate list, as disclosed by Zhang, with the invention disclosed by Li, the motivation being increased performance [abstract].
Claim 11 is drawn to an apparatus adapted to implement the method of claim 6, and is therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite one or more electronics or processors, which Li also teaches (one or more processors) [0119].
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chen et al. US 2021/0243465 A1, hereafter Chen.
Regarding claim 3, Li addresses all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Li fails to explicitly disclose TM cost is used to determine whether the inherited LIC parameters or derived LIC parameters are used for current block, and wherein the derived LIC parameters are derived using one or more templates of the current block and the reference block.
Chen, in an analogous environment, discloses further discloses TM cost is used to determine whether the inherited LIC parameters or derived LIC parameters are used for current block, and wherein the derived LIC parameters are derived using one or more templates of the current block and the reference block (such an evaluation includes deriving the LIC parameters…computing the cost…these steps are repeated in a look over the LIC flag (i.e., on and off) [0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the LIC parameter cost computation and flag, as disclosed by Chen, with the invention disclosed by Li, the motivation being efficiency [0191].
Regarding claim 4, Li and Chen address all of the features with respect to claim 3 as outlined above.
Li further discloses a CU-level flag is signalled to indicate whether the inherited LIC parameters or the derived LIC parameters are used (LIC flag on and off…each possible flag value is being evaluated from the rate distortion viewpoint for the current CU…for LIC usage) [0099].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the LIC parameter cost computation and flag, as disclosed by Chen, with the invention disclosed by Li, the motivation being efficiency [0191].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chubach et al. US 2024/0414366 A1 discloses LIC with coded parameters. Chen et al. US 2024/0388691 A1 discloses LIC with multiple linear models.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights