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 October 8, 2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Dependent claim 11 recites:
A computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method of claim 10.
The scope of the claim is the computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the encoding apparatus of claim 10.
To be given patentable weight, computer-readable recording medium and the data (i.e. descriptive material) must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the descriptive material performs some function with respect to the storage medium to which it is associated. See MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable recording medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. MPEP §2111.05(III). The computer-readable recording medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 11 merely services as a support for the storage of the data and provides no functional relationship between the stored data and storage medium. Therefore, the structure of the data, 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 storage medium storing data and is unpatentable over Ruiz US 20240357096 A1 in further view of Naser et al., US 20250373820 A1 which teaches a storage medium storing a data (“A non-transitory tangible computer readable media.” Ruiz, ¶ [0275]).
Independent claim 12 recites:
A method for transmitting a bitstream generated by an image encoding method, the image encoding method comprising:
performing transformation on a predetermined first adjacent area adjacent to a reference block of a current block;
generating a first prediction block of the current block based on the first adjacent area where transformation is performed and a predetermined second adjacent area adjacent to the current block;
generating a final prediction block of the current block by performing transformation on the first prediction block; and
encoding transformation performance information representing whether the transformation is performed,
wherein the first adjacent area is at a position corresponding to the second adjacent area, and
wherein the transformation includes at least one of flip transformation or rotation transformation.
The bitstream, defined by how the bitstream was generated, only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result is descriptive language. See MPEP §2111.05.
The bitstream has no functional relationship with the “method for transmitting a bitstream.” The claim scope (in light of the specification) describes the generation of bitstream in terms of how the video gets encoded within the bitstream, there is provided no functional relationship between the bitstream’s contents once generated and the process for transmitting the bitstream. As result, claim language directed to the contents of the bitstream is considered non-functional descriptive language and will be given not patentable weight. See Id. Thus, the claim scope is just a method for transmitting a bitstream and is anticipated by Ruiz US 20240357096 A1, which teaches a method for transmitting a bitstream (Ruiz, Transmitting a bitstream 204. Ruiz, Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 is directed to “[a] method for transmitting a bitstream.” However, the claim does not recite transmitting the bitstream. Therefore, the claim is indefinite because it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Appropriate action 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)(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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ruiz US 20240357096 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Ruiz”).
Regarding claim 12, Ruiz discloses a method for transmitting a bitstream generated by an image encoding method, the image encoding method comprising: performing transformation on a predetermined first adjacent area adjacent to a reference block of a current block; generating a first prediction block of the current block based on the first adjacent area where transformation is performed and a predetermined second adjacent area adjacent to the current block; generating a final prediction block of the current block by performing transformation on the first prediction block; and encoding transformation performance information representing whether the transformation is performed, wherein the first adjacent area is at a position corresponding to the second adjacent area, and wherein the transformation includes at least one of flip transformation or rotation transformation (Transmitting bitstream 204. Ruiz, Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
1. Claims 1-4, 6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz US 20240357096 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Ruiz”) in further view of Naser et al., US 20250373820 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Nasar”).
Regarding claim 1, Ruiz discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus (“The video encoding/decoding system 100… may perform the methods and processes as described herein.” Ruiz, ¶ [0004]), comprising:
obtaining transformation performance information representing whether transformation is performed (“The specific transforms used for the vertical and horizontal transform may be signaled in the bitstream through flags. VVC, for example, specifies three flags (MTS_CU_Flag, MTS_Hor_Flag and MTS_Vert_Flag) in accordance with the combinations depicted in TABLE 2 herein.” Ruiz ¶ [0187]; Page 20, Table 2);
performing transformation on a predetermined first adjacent area adjacent to a reference block of a current block based on the transformation performance information (“FIG. 25 shows an example of the three flip types that can be applied to a block 2502 (e.g., reference block or current block) and its template 2504. The three illustrated flip modes include non-flip mode, horizontal flip mode, and vertical flip mode.” Ruiz. ¶ [0193]);
generating a first prediction block of the current block based on the first adjacent area where the transformation is performed and a predetermined second adjacent area adjacent to the current block (“[U]sing a flipped version of the reference block for the current block prediction.” Ruiz, ¶ [0180]. “FIG. 17A shows an example of a template matching prediction (TMP) mode (also referred to as an Intra-TMP mode) for predicting or determining a current block (CB) 1700.” Ruiz, ¶¶ [0149]- [0150]); and
wherein the first adjacent area is at a position corresponding to the second adjacent area (“Samples of a block to be encoded (e.g., a current block) may be predicted from samples of the column immediately adjacent to the left-most column of the current block and samples of the row immediately adjacent to the top-most row of the current block.” Ruiz, ¶ [0087]; Figs. 11, 12, 25), and
wherein the transformation includes at least one of flip transformation or rotation transformation (“The specific transforms used for the vertical and horizontal transform may be signaled in the bitstream through flags. VVC, for example, specifies three flags.” Ruiz ¶ [0187]; Page 20, Table 2. Templates are flipped in the indicated horizontal or vertical direction. “FIG. 19 shows an example of a TMP mode using candidate templates flipped in a horizontal direction. 20A shows an example of a TMP mode using candidate templates flipped in a vertical direction.” Ruiz, ¶¶ [0028-0029]).
However, Ruiz does not disclose generating a final prediction block of the current block by performing transformation on the first prediction block.
However, in the same field of endeavor directed to intra template matching with flipping to encode/decode a current block based on a prediction block, Naser discloses the claimed feature.
Naser discloses generating a final prediction block of the current block by performing transformation on the first prediction block (“The prediction block may be adjusted (e.g., horizontally flipped, vertically flipped, diagonally flipped, or rotated) based on the determined template orientation and the current block may be decoded and/or encoded based on the adjusted (e.g., reoriented) prediction block.” Naser, ¶ [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify Ruiz with by including generating a final prediction block of the current block by performing transformation on the first prediction block, as taught by Naser, in order to reduce the storage and/or transmission bandwidth needed for such signals. Naser, ¶ [0002].
Regarding claim 2, Ruiz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first adjacent area includes at least one of a left adjacent area, a top adjacent area, a top-left adjacent area, a right adjacent area or a bottom adjacent area of the reference block (“Samples of a block to be encoded (e.g., a current block) may be predicted from samples of the column immediately adjacent to the left-most column of the current block and samples of the row immediately adjacent to the top-most row of the current block.” Ruiz, ¶ [0087]; Figs. 11, 12, 25).
Regarding claim 3, Ruiz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the transformation performance information further includes transformation type information representing a transformation type performed (“The specific transforms used for the vertical and horizontal transform may be signaled in the bitstream through flags. VVC, for example, specifies three flags (MTS_CU_Flag, MTS_Hor_Flag and MTS_Vert_Flag) in accordance with the combinations depicted in TABLE 2 herein.” Ruiz ¶ [0187]; Page 20, Table 2).
Regarding claim 4, Ruiz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the flip transformation includes at least one of vertical flip transformation, horizontal flip transformation, diagonal flip transformation or vertical diagonal flip transformation (Ruiz ¶ [0187]; Page 20, Table 2).
Regarding claim 6, Ruiz discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first prediction block is generated based on an error value calculated based on the first adjacent area where the transformation is performed and the second adjacent area (“A decoder (e.g., decoder 300 in FIG. 3) may receive the residual from a bitstream, and the coding the residual (e.g., residual block) using the at least one of the horizontal transform and the vertical transform at that decoder.” Ruiz, ¶ [0220]).
Regarding claim 10, claim 1 is sustainably similar to claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Ruiz discloses a computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method of claim 10 (“A non-transitory tangible computer readable media.” Ruiz ¶ [0275]).
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz in further view of Naser and Zhang et al., US 9860559 B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 5, Ruiz and Naser do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the rotation transformation includes at least one of 90-degree counterclockwise rotation transformation, 180-degree counterclockwise rotation transformation or 270-degree counterclockwise rotation transformation.
More specifically, Ruiz discloses indicating a degree of rotation and implies a rotation direction, wherein Ruiz discloses that “[t]he transformation may include rotating the current template by a predetermined amount (e.g., degrees, or radians, etc.)” Ruiz, ¶ [0259]. Horizontal and vertical flags. Ruiz ¶ [0187]; Page 20, Table 2; Fig. 25).
However, in the same field of endeavor directed to predicting the current block based on a flipping a reference block, Zhang discloses the claimed feature.
Zhang discloses the rotation transformation includes at least one of 90-degree counterclockwise rotation transformation, 180-degree counterclockwise rotation transformation or 270-degree counterclockwise rotation transformation (Reference block modified by “Clockwise Rotation” and “Counter-clockwise Rotation.” Zhang, Figs. 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify Ruiz and Naser with the rotation transformation includes at least one of 90-degree counterclockwise rotation transformation, 180-degree counterclockwise rotation transformation or 270-degree counterclockwise rotation transformation, as taught by Zhang, in order to improve intra block coding efficiency. Zhang, Col. 1:15-19.
Regarding claim 7, Ruiz and Naser do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein based on the current block being a non-square block, the first adjacent area includes a sample area within the reference block before the transform.
However, in the same field of endeavor directed to predicting the current block based on a flipping a reference block, Zhang discloses the claimed feature.
Zhang discloses based on the current block being a non-square block, the first adjacent area includes a sample area within the reference block before the transform. (“The reformed block copying methods can be applied to a block with size M×N, where M and N are arbitrary positive integers. M and N can be the same or different.” Zhang, Col. 6:26-32; Figs. 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify Ruiz and Naser with, based on the current block being a non-square block, the first adjacent area includes a sample area within the reference block before the transform, as taught by Zhang, in order to improve intra block coding efficiency. Zhang, Col. 1:15-19.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz in further view of Naser and Chen et al., US 20240297987 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Chen”).
Regarding claim 8, Ruiz and Naser do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein generating the first prediction block further comprises: deriving an illumination compensation parameter based on the first adjacent area where the transformation is performed and the second adjacent area; performing illumination compensation on the reference block based on the illumination compensation parameter; and generating the first prediction block based on a reference block where the illumination compensation is performed.
However, in the same field of endeavor directed to applications of intra bock prediction, Chen discloses the claimed feature.
Chen discloses generating the first prediction block further comprises: deriving an illumination compensation parameter based on the first adjacent area where the transformation is performed and the second adjacent area; performing illumination compensation on the reference block based on the illumination compensation parameter; and generating the first prediction block based on a reference block where the illumination compensation is performed (“FIG. 9 is a conceptual diagram illustrating examples of neighboring samples used for deriving IC parameters….[deriving] the parameters a and b by using the neighboring samples of the current CU and their corresponding reference samples. More specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 9 the subsampled (2:1 subsampling) neighboring samples (shown as circles with slashes) of the CU and the corresponding pixels (shown as circles with a checkboard pattern and identified by motion information of the current CU or sub-CU) in the reference picture are used. The IC parameters are derived and applied for each prediction direction separately.” Chen, ¶ [0140]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify Ruiz and Naser with by performing illumination compensation for a block prediction, as taught by Chen, in order to adjust for luma changes between video frames or image sections to improve prediction accuracy and data compression.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ruiz in further view of Naser and Kim et al., US 20260222540 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claim 9, Ruiz and Naser do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising: generating a second prediction block of the current block based on an intra prediction mode, wherein the final prediction block is generated by weighted summing the first prediction block where the transformation is performed and a second prediction block.
However, in the same field of endeavor directed to combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP), Kim discloses the claimed feature.
Kim discloses generating a second prediction block of the current block based on an intra prediction mode, wherein the final prediction block is generated by weighted summing the first prediction block where the transformation is performed and a second prediction block (“[A] method for generating a final prediction block by performing weighted averaging of a prediction block generated by an intra-picture prediction method and a prediction block generated by an inter-picture prediction method when generating a prediction block for the current block.” Kim, ¶ [0146]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify Ruiz and Naser with generating a second prediction block of the current block based on an intra prediction mode, wherein the final prediction block is generated by weighted summing the first prediction block where the transformation is performed and a second prediction block, as taught by Kim, in order to increase the coding efficiency of a video signal. Kim, ¶ [0003].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE L BEASLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0452. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5 p.m.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/DLB/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
/CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights