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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 4, 2026 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 (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.
Claim(s) 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RATH et al (US 2020/0275096, RATH) in view of LEE et al (US 2019/0281290, hereafter LEE) in further view of Park et al (US 2018/0048896, hereafter Park) in further view of Ko et al (US 2019/0191155, hereafter Ko).
As per claim 16, RATH discloses a method of decoding an image with a decoding apparatus, comprising:
obtaining a first prediction sample of a current block by performing a first prediction for the current block (¶ 66);
obtaining a second prediction sample of the current block by performing a second prediction for the current block (¶ 66); and
wherein only a non-directional intra prediction mode of Planar mode is determined as the intra prediction mode for the first prediction (¶ 83 - 86), and wherein the second prediction is performed based on a prediction mode which is not based on the non-directional intra prediction mode of the Planar mode.
However, RATH does not explicitly teach obtaining a final prediction sample of the current block based on a weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample.
In the same field of endeavor, LEE discloses obtaining a final prediction sample of the current block based on a weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample (¶ 448).
However, RATH or LEE does not explicitly teach wherein an intra prediction mode for the first prediction is pre-defined in the decoding apparatus so information for determining the intra prediction mode for the first prediction is not present in a bitstream.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches wherein an intra prediction mode for the first prediction is pre-defined in the decoding apparatus so information for determining the intra prediction mode for the first prediction is not present in a bitstream (¶ 172; the prediction mode has not been coded and provided from the encoder, the decoder performs prediction in an intra-prediction mode predefined to be the same as that of the encoder, e.g., in the planar or DC mode.).
However, RATH or LEE or Park does not explicitly teach wherein, weights for the weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample is determined by referring to a neighboring block adjacent to the current block, the neighboring block comprising at least one of a top neighboring block or a left neighboring block adjacent to the current block.
In the same field of endeavor, Ko teaches teach wherein, weights for the weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample is determined by referring to a neighboring block adjacent to the current block, the neighboring block comprising at least one of a top neighboring block or a left neighboring block adjacent to the current block (¶ 446).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of RATH in view of LEE in further view of Park in further view of Ko. The advantage is improved rate distortion in video coding.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 16 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 16 are applicable for claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487