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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1, 3, 4 and 11-16. Claims 1 and 12-14 have been amended, and claim 11 has been cancelled. Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 4 and 12-16 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the combination of Lee et al., Kotaka et al. and Zhang et al. fails to teach “the circuitry performs the matrix intra prediction based on an operation changed according to the shift amount set to the fixed value”. However examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 10, Lee et al. teaches “The positioning of the reference sample may determine a predetermined fixed position as the position of the reference sample.” In Paragraph 20, Lee et al. teaches “The weighting matrix may be a predetermined fixed weighting matrix”. In Paragraph 81, Lee et al. teaches “For example, the encoder may determine the predetermined fixed position within the current block as the position of the reference sample. In addition, the encoder may determine a position at which the a predetermined cost function value is minimum as the position of the reference sample and the position of the reference sample using the information associated with the neighboring blocks adjacent to the current block. The detailed exemplary embodiment of the method for determining the reference sample position will be described below.” In Paragraph 87 Lee et al. teaches “The encoder may determine the predetermined fixed position within the current block as the position of the reference sample. The position of the reference sample may be one or more. In this case, the decoder may determine the predetermined fixed position as the position of the reference sample and thus, the encoder may not transmit the information on the position of the reference sample to the decoder. In addition, since the predetermined fixed position is used, the encoder may not perform the separate calculation for obtaining the position information.” In Paragraph 107, Lee et al. teaches “The position of the reference sample may be represented by various methods. For example, the specific position within the current block may be represented by the coordinate values that are the reference point. Referring to FIG. 8, the position of the reference point may be the same as the sample 810 (HP) of the rightmost lower end within the current block. In this case, the position of the determined reference sample 820 (EO) may be coordinate values (1, 3). Here, 1 may represent a position moved by 1 sample upwardly from the reference point and 3 may represent a position moved by 3 samples in a left direction from the reference point. The method for defining the reference point and/or the coordinate values is not limited to the above-mentioned exemplary embodiment and therefore, may be variously defined as an implementation manner and/or as needed.” This disclosure throughout Lee et al. is interpreted to meet the claim limitations as filed.
Applicant argues that the combination of Lee et al., Kotaka et al. and Zhang et al. fails to teach “wherein the mode of matrix intra prediction is a mode number of the matrix intra prediction”. However examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph 73, Lee et al. explicitly teaches “In this case, the encoder may perform the intra prediction in a vertical direction 410, a horizontal direction 420, or a diagonal direction 430. Here, the number of prediction direction and/or the prediction method, or the like, may be variously defined.” Although not relied on for this particular rejection since it is already taught explicitly by Lee et al., Examiner notes that Zhang et al. further also teaches “The neighboring PUs may be above, above and to the right, above and to the left, or to the left of the PU, assuming a left-to-right, top-to-bottom encoding order for PUs, CUs, and CTUs. Intra-prediction processing unit 126 may use various numbers of intra prediction modes, e.g., 33 directional intra prediction modes. In some examples, the number of intra prediction modes may depend on the size of the region associated with the PU.”
Applicant is reminded that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected as before.
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) 1, 3, 4 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20170006293 A1) in view of Kotaka et al. (US 20150036753 A1) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20190260996 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee et al. teaches an image processing device (Abstract), comprising:
circuitry configured to perform a matrix intra prediction using a shift amount set to a fixed value to generate a predicted image of a current prediction block, when the matrix intra prediction which is intra prediction using a matrix operation is performed on the current prediction block to be encoded, and the circuitry performs the matrix intra prediction based on an operation changed according to the shift amount set to the fixed value, wherein the mode of matrix intra prediction is a mode number of the matrix intra prediction (Paragraphs 8-21; Paragraphs 68-80; Paragraphs 81-91; Paragraphs 106-108; Paragraphs 120-122); and
encode the current prediction block using the predicted image that was generated (Paragraph 22).
However, Lee et al. does not explicitly teach a fixed value of 6; the fixed value is a value that is fixed regardless of a mode of the matrix intra prediction; the fixed value of 6.
Kotaka et al., however, teaches that the fixed value is a value that is fixed regardless of a mode of the matrix intra prediction (Paragraph 348, “The method for deciding the shift amount is arbitrary. For example, the shift amount may be known. In the case of the MVC standard, for example, parallax between images is decided in advance. Thus, an amount of the intra-prediction mode to be shifted is also a fixed value.”; Paragraphs 349-354).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the image processing device of Lee et al. to include the use of a fixed value for performing the shift as taught in Kotaka et al. above, in order to more easily shift the intra-prediction mode (See Kotaka et al. Paragraph 354).
However, neither of Lee et al. and Kotaka et al. explicitly teach a fixed value of 6.
Zhang et al., however, teaches using a shift amount set to a fixed value of 6 (Paragraph 107).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the image processing device of Lee et al. and Kotaka et al. to include the use of a fixed value of specifically 6 for performing the shift as taught in Zhang et al. above, because such a teaching is merely a design choice and further to improve video coding (See Zhang et al. Paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee et al, Kotaka et al. and Zhang et al. teach the image processing device according to claim 1, Lee et al. further teaches wherein circuitry performs the matrix intra prediction based on an operation changed according to the shift amount set to the fixed value (Paragraphs 8-21).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee et al, Kotaka et al. and Zhang et al. teach the image processing device according to claim 2, Lee et al. further teaches wherein circuitry performs the matrix intra prediction based on an operation including a weight matrix changed according to the shift amount set to the fixed value (Paragraphs 8-21).
Regarding Claim 4, Lee et al, Kotaka et al. and Zhang et al. teach the image processing device according to claim 3, Lee et al. further teaches wherein the circuitry performs the matrix intra prediction based on an operation including a bias vector or a variable fO changed according to the shift amount set to the fixed value (Paragraphs 8-21).
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al, Kotaka et al. and Zhang et al. teach the image processing device according to claim 1, Lee et al. further teaches wherein the circuitry performs the matrix intra prediction based on an operation including a weight matrix changed according to the shift amount set to the fixed value, and the circuitry performs the matrix intra prediction based on an operation including a bias vector (Paragraphs 8-21; Paragraphs 68-85; Paragraphs 86-91; Paragraphs 106-108).
Regarding claim 16, Lee et al, Kotaka et al. and Zhang et al. teach the image processing device according to claim 1, Lee et al. further teaches wherein the circuitry performs the matrix intra prediction based on an operation including a weight matrix changed according to the shift amount set to the fixed value, and the circuitry performs the matrix intra prediction based on an operation including a variable fO changed according to the shift amount set to the fixed value (Paragraphs 8-21; Paragraphs 68-85; Paragraphs 86-91; Paragraphs 106-108).
Claim 13 have similar limitations to those of claims 1, 15, and 16 above and is rejected for the same reasons as used above. Lee et al. further teaches the matrix intra prediction which is intra prediction using a matrix operation is performed on the current prediction block to be encoded; and an encoding process of encoding the current prediction block using the predicted image generated in the intra prediction process (Paragraphs 8-21; Paragraph 23).
Method claims 12 and 14 are drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claimed in respective claims 1, 13, 15, 16 above and are rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 5712727383. 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.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights