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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered.
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 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 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 1-5, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (Provisional 62/817,542 dated 3/12/19. Note: Non-provisional application US 2022/0182616 is used in the rejection instead of the provisional application for clarity purposes but all mapping used are reflected in the provisional application).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method for video decoding (see 200 in Fig. 3), comprising: receiving a bitstream (see “Bitstream” in Fig. 3), wherein the bitstream includes information indicating an Intra Sub-Partitions (ISP) split type (see S1631 in fig. 33; e.g. see ¶ [0378]), wherein the information includes a flag “IntraSubPartitionsSplitType” (see ¶ [0378]); selecting fC interpolation filter coefficients (see ¶ [0022], [0178]) in response to IntraSubPartitionsSplitType not being equal to ISPNO_SPLIT (see ¶ [0378]) without considering a size of a current block (e.g. ¶ [0374]-[0379], wherein the ”one or more of the following conditions are true” in ¶ [0374] indicates that in instance where “IntraSubPartitionsSplitType is not equal to ISPNO_SPLIT” is true, the process proceeds to using an interpolating filter regardless of the other conditions. This implies that regardless of any other conditions not shown, such as the block size, is not considered when at least one condition is met); wherein the size is a product of a width and a height (e.g. ¶ [0374]-[0379], wherein it is obvious that a block, which is not considered in any conditions, will have a size of dimension width and height); and applying the selected coefficients to reference samples to obtain predicted samples of a current block (see 235-265 in Figs. 3).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Li further discloses wherein a value of a filter flag is set to 0 in response to IntraSubPartitionsSplitType not being equal to ISPNO_SPLIT (see S1632 in fig. 33; e.g. see ¶ [0374]), and fC coefficients for the interpolation filter are selected in response to the value of the filter flag being set to 0 (see S1633 in fig. 33; e.g. see ¶ [0374]).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Li further discloses wherein a filtering state for the current block is no-smoothing state in response to the value of the filter flag being set to 0 (see S1632).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Li further discloses determining interpolation filter coefficients from the selected coefficients of the interpolation filter based on an intra prediction mode of the current block (e.g. see ¶ [0378]); and applying the determined interpolation filter coefficients to the reference samples (see S1633 in fig. 33).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Li further discloses wherein the fC interpolation filter coefficients are defined (see S1633 in fig. 33).
Regarding claim 9, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, Li further discloses obtaining a value of a flag that indicates whether an intra-prediction mechanism is applied (e.g. see ¶ [0130]); and comparing the value of the obtained flag with a predetermined binary value (e.g. see ¶ [0375]).
Regarding claim 15, Li further discloses selecting fG interpolation coefficients at least in response to IntraSubPartitionsSplitType being equal to ISP_NO_SPLIT (see S1633 in fig. 33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-5, and 9-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Kim US 2021/0377519 A1 discloses [0130] the encoder/decoder may configure 1 as a filter flag of a block, a transform block of which is a luma component, and to which ISP has been applied. As another example, the encoder/decoder may determine whether to apply an interpolation filter, based on a filter flag.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights