DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 01/30/2026 in which claims 2, 3, 7–9, 11, and 13–18 are cancelled, claims 1, 4–6, 10, and 19 are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
Examiner incorporates herein previous Responses to Arguments.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the double patenting rejection should be held in abeyance. However, Examiner notes there is a terminal disclaimer filed (dated 01/30/2026 in the file wrapper). Because the terminal disclaimer obviates the double patenting rejection, the rejection is withdrawn.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant contends that while Lee teaches which correction filter to apply, Lee “does not teach or suggest whether or not to apply the filter in the first place.” Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claimed subject matter is unclear. Applicant’s claim 1 states that there are two filters that differ from one another in reciting, “wherein the interpolation filter is different from the reference sample filter.” First, Examiner finds the skilled artisan would not find those two filters necessarily different as averred. When a reference sample is filtered, it is changed from a current value to another value typically based on neighboring samples. Broadly speaking, changing a sample to be more coherent with surrounding samples invokes in the mind of the skilled artisan the terminology of interpolation filtering because a sample’s value is an extension of surrounding sample values. Applicant’s own Specification appears to agree with this finding in explaining in published paragraph [0310] that “reference sample filtering/interpolation filtering/boundary area filtering” are synonymous. Therefore, while Applicant’s newly filed claim amendment and arguments insist on a difference between a reference sample filter and an interpolation filter, the skilled artisan would not necessarily consider them distinct. Instead, they are either synonymous or otherwise represent a genus/species relationship wherein the skilled artisan is put in possession of the genus/species by either a teaching of the genus or the species. Examiner notes Applicant’s published paragraphs [0009] and [0018] explain the reference sample filter can be a smoothing filter. Zhao (US 2016/0373742 A1), para. [0178] explains an interpolation filter performed during intra prediction and varying based on block size represents a smoothing filter having a smoothing strength. For all the foregoing reasons, Examiner finds an interpolation filter can be a smoothing filter, which can be a reference sample filter as claimed. Second, Lee’s paragraph [0072] explicitly explains filters, such as deblocking filters (which smooth edges to get rid of blocking artifacts) are subject to a determination whether to perform the filtering and Lee’s paragraph [0088] teaches a smoothing filter “and whether to apply the filter may be determined depending on the prediction mode of the current prediction unit.” (emphasis added). Furthermore, Lee’s paragraph [0139] teaches the filtering may or may not be performed based on prediction mode compared to a threshold or size compared to a threshold. For at least the foregoing reasons, Examiner is unpersuaded that Lee is deficient for failing to teach or suggest whether or not to apply a filter in the first place as Applicant avers.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant addressed the teachings of Yoo. Examiner does not acquiesce, but finds the arguments moot as not particularly relating to any rejection. The citing of Yoo was due to its relevance in explaining the prior art had reason to filter or not filter reference samples based on intra-prediction mode. Applicant’s arguments against Yoo are not germane to that finding and are thus deemed irrelevant as lacking proximity to the reason for the citing of Yoo.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Lee-3 and Lainema do not cure the deficiencies of Lee and Yoo. Because Lee is not deficient in the manner averred, as explained supra, and because Yoo is not relevant to any rejection of record, Applicant’s arguments against Lee-3 and Lainema are moot. Furthermore, as explained in the preceding Office Action, “Lee-3 teaches whether and how to perform filtering can be determined based on intra prediction mode (as well as other parameters or characteristics of the video signal).”
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 9.
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 of this title, 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, 4, 5, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0313116 A1), Lainema (US 2016/0165248 A1), Lee (US 2013/0301720 A1) (herein “Lee-3”), and Filippov (US 2018/0262756 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, and Filippov teaches or suggests a method of decoding an image, the method comprising: selecting a reference sample line of a current block from among a plurality of reference sample lines adjacent to the current block (Lee, ¶ 0181: teaches reference samples chosen for intra prediction from a set of reference samples corresponding to a reference sample line along the top or left boundary of the current block; see Lee, Fig. 11); determining a reference sample of the current block included in the selected reference sample line (Lee, ¶ 0181: teaches reference samples chosen for intra prediction from a set of reference samples corresponding to a reference sample line along the top or left boundary of the current block; see Lee, Fig. 11); and performing intra-prediction by using the reference sample (Lee, ¶ 0181: teaches reference samples chosen for intra prediction from a set of reference samples corresponding to a reference sample line along the top or left boundary of the current block; see Lee, Fig. 11), wherein the reference sample line of the current block is selected based on whether an upper boundary of the current block is a boundary of a coding tree block (Lee, e.g. ¶ 0188: teaches a plurality of reference lines is contemplated; see also Lee, Fig. 15; Lee, ¶ 0144: teaches a reference sample can be determined based on whether it is located on a boundary of a current block; see also Lee, e.g. Fig. 15: illustrating the reference samples are boundary samples of the current block; Lee, ¶ 0097: teaches coding tree units; Lee, ¶ 0173: explains coding tree unit regions may be set for determining reference samples through filtering; Lee, ¶ 0189: teaches the decision whether to use reference sample lines can be determined in units of coding tree units (CTUs); Lee does not explicitly teach that which Lainema teaches regarding determinations of reference sample lines when the current block corresponds to a CTB boundary; Lainema, ¶¶ 0330 and 0343: teach that reference samples for intra-prediction techniques can be disallowed based on whether the current block boundary corresponds to a CTU (CTB) boundary such that reference samples across said boundary are disallowed (unavailable); Therefore, the combination of Lee and Lainema demonstrates that the skilled artisan had in her possession before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the ability to consider available or unavailable reference samples used in intra prediction that are across a CTB boundary; Examiner notes other references are listed under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action which are also viewed to teach this feature), and wherein determining whether the reference sample is selectively filtered by a reference sample filter is based on a size of the current block, an intra-prediction mode of the current block, whether the current block is further divided, and a pixel component of the current block (Examiner notes this limitation is from claim 7 and claim 7 previously included a list of equivalents and did not express a preference of any particular basis for the filtering such that the previous claim language is evidence that the list was a list of equivalents; Therefore, whether the current block is divided appears to be an equivalent scenario to the others and thus a teaching of one equivalent is a teaching or suggestion of all other equivalents under claim interpretation doctrine; Notwithstanding the doctrine, the prior art nevertheless teaches these features in their entirety; Lee, Fig. 12: illustrates that the reference samples in the reference sample line can be subjected to filtering; Lee, ¶ 0162: teaches filtering reference samples in a reference sample line to achieve final reference samples; Lee, ¶¶ 0088 and 0139: teaches selective smoothing filtering may or may not be performed based on prediction mode compared to a threshold or size compared to a threshold; Lee, ¶ 0153: explains filtering can be based on intra mode, intra direction, whether the neighboring block is coded in intra or inter, whether the samples are on a boundary, and the size and shape of the current block; Lee, ¶ 0153: teaches filter length (i.e. number of taps), strength, and filter coefficients may be determined from a number of possibilities; Examiner further notes the size of the block, as taught by Lee is obviously dictated by whether it is divided since, in this art, blocks are recursively divided in a tree structure, e.g. quad tree partitioning; Lee, ¶ 0050: teaches recursive quad tree partitioning; Further still, Lee, ¶ 0074: teaches that the filtering operation may be individually determined based on how the pixels are grouped, i.e. how/whether they are divided into smaller groups (i.e. blocks); see also Lee, ¶ 0097; Lee, ¶¶ 0086 and 0097: teaches coding tree blocks may be divided into coding units/blocks and may further be divided into prediction units that are designated as intra-predicted; Examiner notes that a current coding unit or current prediction unit is the same as a current block; see e.g. Lee, ¶¶ 0058 and 0096; To expedite prosecution, the rejection additionally relies on the teachings of Lee-3; Lee-3, ¶ 0125: teaches whether or not filtering is performed can be based on prediction mode of current and neighboring blocks, size, depth, component (luma or chroma), whether blocks are available, etc.), wherein the intra-prediction is further performed by an interpolation filter wherein a type of the interpolation filter is determined based on whether an intra prediction mode specific condition for performing reference sample filtering is satisfied, and wherein the interpolation filter is different from the reference sample filter (Lee, ¶ 0088: teaches the intra prediction process can include interpolation filtering; Lee, ¶ 0153: explains filtering is chosen based on parameters such as intra prediction mode, intra prediction direction, whether the neighboring block is coded in intra or inter, whether the samples are on a boundary, and the size and shape of the current block; Lee is not relied upon for teaching that the interpolation filter and reference sample filtering process may be different and informed by one another; Filippov, ¶¶ 0031–0037 and 0127–0132: teaches the selection of the interpolation filter type can be synchronized with the reference sampling filtering process so as to harmonize the selection of the interpolation filter based on the reference sample filter to avoid, e.g. over-smoothing wherein the filtering can be determined according to some condition; Filippov, e.g. ¶ 0134: teaches “an intra-mode condition” being evaluated; see also Filippov, ¶ 0148 et seq. and Fig. 8 also describing reference sample adaptive filtering (RSAF) informing interpolation filter type).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lee, with those of Lainema, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice intra-prediction and sample filtering for reference sample lines would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as Lainema explains, CTB boundaries are treated as special cases requiring constraints regarding the use of reference of samples (such as those used in reference sample line prediction) outside the CTB such that the skilled artisan would have been led to use this teaching to carry out the reference sample filtering for intra prediction used in Lee. Thus, the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lee and Lainema used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lee and Lainema, with those of Lee-3, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice intra-prediction and sample filtering for reference sample lines would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as Lainema explains, CTB boundaries are treated as special cases requiring constraints regarding the use of reference of samples (such as those used in reference sample line prediction) outside the CTB such that the skilled artisan would have been led to use this teaching to carry out the reference sample filtering for intra prediction used in Lee and Lee-3. Thus, the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lee, Lainema, and Lee-3 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lee, Lainema, and Lee-3, with those of Filippov, because all four references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice intra-prediction and sample filtering for reference sample lines would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as Filippv explains, harmonizing reference sample filtering with intra-prediction interpolation filtering beneficially prevents over-smoothing (Filippov, ¶ 0132). Thus, the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, and Filippov used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the type of the interpolation filter is determined based on the size of the current block and the intra prediction mode of the current block (Filippov, ¶ 0125 and Figs. 4–5: teaches interpolation filter types chosen based on size and intra-prediction mode; Lee-3, ¶ 0125: teaches whether or not filtering is performed can be based on prediction mode of current and neighboring blocks, size, depth, component (luma or chroma), whether blocks are available, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the interpolation filter is determined from a plurality of interpolation filters (Filippov, ¶ 0125 and Figs. 4–5: teaches interpolation filter types chosen based on size and intra-prediction mode), wherein the interpolation filter is performed only when the pixel component of the current block is a luma sample (Lee, ¶ 0059: teaches luma prediction may stand alone as separate from predicting chroma information; see also Lee, ¶¶ 0119 and 0133; Lee-3, ¶ 0125: teaches whether or not filtering is performed can be based on prediction mode of current and neighboring blocks, size, depth, component (luma or chroma), whether blocks are available, etc.).
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 10, but is a product-by-process claim claiming the resultant bitstream created by the method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 10 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, Filippov, and Zhao (US 2018/0091825 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, Fillipov, and Zhao teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of interpolation filters are a first filter and a second filter having a length of 4 and being 1/32 unit (Lee, ¶ 0153: teaches filter length (i.e. number of taps), strength, and filter coefficients may be determined from a number of possibilities; Lee does not appear to particularly describe the 4-tap 1/32 precision interpolation filter that Zhao describes; Zhao, ¶ 0086).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, and Filippov, with those of Zhao, because all five references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice sample filtering for reference sample lines would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as Zhao explains, 4-tap filters with 1/32 precision is a conventional filter used in the JEM 3.0 video encoder for generating reference sample for intra prediction such that the skilled artisan would have been led to use the existing interpolation filter to carry out the reference sample filtering for intra prediction used in Lee, Lee-3, and Filippov. Thus, the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, Filippov, and Zhao used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, Filippov, Zhao, and Alshina (US 2016/0007032 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, Filippov, Zhao, and Alshina teaches or suggests the method of claim 6, wherein the first filter is the same as an interpolation filter used in inter-prediction for a chroma component (Alshina, ¶ 0229: teaches in HEVC an inter-chroma prediction interpolation filter uses a 4-tap interpolation filter; Zhao, ¶ 0086: teaches the prior art coding software includes a 4-tap 1/32 precision interpolation filter; Examiner finds that Alshina and Zhao establish that an interpolation filter already exists in the software, which can be used for reference sample filtering; This claim is saying the chosen filter is the one pre-existing for chroma inter prediction).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, Filippov, and Zhao, with those of Alshina, because all six references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice sample interpolation filtering would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as Zhao explains, 4-tap filters with 1/32 precision is a conventional filter used in the JEM 3.0 video encoder for generating reference sample for intra prediction such that the skilled artisan would have been led to use the existing interpolation filter (e.g. the one for chroma inter prediction as described in Alshina) to carry out the reference sample filtering for intra prediction used in Lee, Lee-3, and Filippov. Thus, the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lee, Lainema, Lee-3, Filippov, Zhao, and Alshina used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang et al., "Multiple Reference Line Coding for Most Probable Modes in Intra Prediction," 2019 Data Compression Conference, 2019. This reference does not have a “good” date, but explains, “To reduce complexity arising from additional lines to be checked at encoder side, we further propose to restrict the MRL to angular most probable modes (MPMs) only.” (emphasis added).
S. Matsuo, S. Takamura, and Y. Yashima, “Intra prediction with spatial gradients and multiple reference lines,” in Picture Coding Symposium, 2009. PCS 2009. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–4.
Li (US 2019/0141318 A1) Li, ¶ 0155: teaches coding a reference line index in the bitstream; Li, ¶ 0155: teaches intra-prediction reference lines are identified by the reference line index value; see also Li, ¶ 0153: describing the step as “selecting” (see previous version of the claim using “selecting” rather than “deriving); Li, ¶ 0131: teaches the reference lines have reference samples contained within the reference lines that are “derived” Li, ¶ 0012: teaches reference samples may or may not be subjected to in-loop filtering before being used as reference samples; Li, ¶¶ 0009 and 0100: teaches smoothing filters used for samples in non-adjacent reference lines, i.e. based on a particular type of reference line; Li, Fig. 43: explains filtering occurs only for reference lines that have an index that is not zero, i.e. outside an adjacent reference line; Li, ¶ 0186: teaches an example of reference line filtering, importantly explaining the reference line index 1, for a non-adjacent reference line, is subjected to the filtering; Li, ¶ 0193: explains that a filtered reference line could receive a different reference line index indicating it is a filtered reference line; see also Li, ¶¶ 0188 and 0201 Li, ¶ 0186: teaches reference line sample filtering wherein the filtering only uses neighboring samples within the reference line; Li, ¶ 0186: explains the filtering is a 1D filter using only the sample values within the reference line; Examiner notes the example of [1,2,1]/4 also teaches the samples are neighbors Examiner finds this obvious in view of the level of skill in the art especially in view of the complexities introduced by MRL and the motivation to simplify the evaluation of MRLs as demonstrated in Li, ¶¶ 0317–0341: describing encoder-side decisions and rough-mode decisions (RMD) that simplify an otherwise exhaustive search/evaluation.
Liu (US 2017/0353719 A1) teaches interpolation filters at 1/64 precision (e.g. ¶ 0022).
Li (US 2016/0234492 A1) teaches that pixels outside a CTU boundary are considered unavailable as reference samples and may need to be interpolated (¶ 0118), which would suggest that CTU or CTB boundaries would create a special case needing additional computation in order to produce a reference sample line.
Wang (US 2013/0182775 A1) teaches a coding technique in which CTB boundaries control whether prediction samples are available or not (¶ 0126).
Kolesnikov (US 2016/0057430 A1) teaches that any coding unit abutting the top edge of the current CTU has certain coding tools, including intra-boundary filtering, disabled (¶ 0158).
Zhang (US 2016/0073132 A1) teaches checking whether a prediction unit is located adjacent to a top boundary of a CTU and explains that data may not be available for predicting that block unless a line buffer is utilized to keep some of the data (¶ 0020), which Examiner notes also suggests to the skilled artisan that tools requiring reference to that unavailable data, absent the line buffer solution, would have to be disallowed since they would not work without the data across the CTU boundary.
Chen (US 2021/0281873 A1) teaches the skilled artisan would find block size is related to split depth (e.g. ¶ 0008) and teaches disallowing reference to neighboring blocks having a different partitioning scheme or depth (e.g. Figs. 10A and 10B and accompanying description).
Zhao (US 2019/0124366 A1) teaches the skilled artisan would find block size and division depth to be equivalents in this art (see tables on page 6).
Hsiang (US 2018/0332288 A1) teaches block size is related to division depth (¶ 0046).
Ikai (US 2018/0192076 A1) teaches depth dictates block size (¶ 0119).
Zhang (US 2016/0330481 A1) teaches disabling boundary filtering, interpolation, etc. based on size or depth (¶¶ 0072 and 0074).
Gu (2015/0110174 A1) teaches “For the luma component, neighboring reference samples may be filtered before the intra prediction process.” (emphasis added) (¶ 0074).
Jeon (US 2020/0288146 A1) explains filtering for Intra_DC, horizontal, and vertical modes can be omitted to improve performance (¶ 0205).
Yoo (US 2020/0137404 A1) teaches filtering of reference samples for Intra_DC, horizontal, and vertical modes can be omitted to improve performance (¶ 0177).
Park (US 2021/0297684 A1) teaches non-directional modes such as planar or DC mode do not get filtering (¶ 0300).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights