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
The arguments in the instant Response to Office Action of 12/30/2025 are rejected as fallacious, just as the preceding arguments of record.
Namely, Applicant’s Representative sophistically and voluminously argues that the amendment of the assessment being performed prior to selection of the encoding mode provides distinction over the cited art as a distinct step. However, this position is rejected because necessarily evaluation of the block is performed before mode selection. See Abstract of the primary Holland reference, and claims mapping below.
Again, it is pointed out that the independent claims merely require classifying the blocks in notoriously known categories such as vertical or horizontal, and choosing an encoding mode from among multiple notoriously known encoding modes, both aspects being well known and commonly used in coding such that the independent claims are at least obvious on face. The outstanding rejections are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 12 are 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland (US 2019/0261001) in view of Zhao (US 2020/0389671).
Regarding claim 1, Holland discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having stored thereon computer-executable instructions for causing one or more processing units, when programmed thereby, to perform operations (paragraph 0100, shown figure 6, processor 602 executes instructions stored on memory 604) comprising: encoding one or more frames of video content, thereby producing encoded data in a bitstream, (paragraphs 0079/0080, block encoded using determined encoding mode and output in bitstream) wherein the encoding the one or more frames of video content includes, for a block of one of the one or more frames of video content: prior to selecting an encoding mode for the block, (Abstract, evaluation of block performed in order to select encoding mode and is thus prior to selection as recited) evaluating pixel values of the block, (paragraphs 0030/0039/0050, pixels of block are evaluated for comparison with candidate blocks) and based on results of the evaluating the pixel values of the block, (paragraphs 0039/0063, color evaluation of block used to determine Palette mode candidates) classifying the block in one of multiple categories, (paragraph 0078, preliminary classification of block as being static/motion type-see also paragraph 0098) thereby generating a block classification that indicates the one of the multiple categories, (paragraph 0098, block classified among inter/intra/palette/IBC categories) ...based at least in part on the block classification, selecting, from multiple available encoding modes, the encoding mode for the block, (paragraph 0079, final mode decision made based on previous classification) the multiple available encoding modes including an intra block copy mode, a palette mode, and a directional spatial prediction mode, (paragraph 0030, selection from intra, IBC, Palette; intra will be vertical/horizontal-see paragraph 0026) wherein the selecting the encoding mode for the block includes evaluating at least some of the multiple available encoding modes in an evaluation order; (paragraphs 0039/0040, evaluation order may be biased-see also paragraph 0098, spatial modes are default in case IBC/Palette modes fail, this providing an order of IBC/Palette modes, then spatial modes last) and encoding the block using the selected encoding mode; (paragraphs 0079, 0098 modes evaluated based on RDO cost) and encoding the block using the determined encoding mode. (paragraph 0079, block encoded using determined encoding mode) and outputting the encoded data in the bitstream. (paragraph 0080, encoded data output in bitstream)
While Holland discloses vertical and horizontal intra prediction, (paragraph 0026) Holland fails to identically disclose the multiple categories including a simple vertical category, a simple horizontal category, a simple category, and a non-simple category, wherein the simple vertical category indicates, for each column of the block, that all of the pixel values of the block that are in that column are identical, wherein the simple horizontal category indicates, for each row of the block, that all of the pixel values of the block that are in that row are identical, and wherein the simple category indicates that all of the pixel values of the block are identical.
In regard to these features, first it is noted that a simple equivalent copy for a block is well known in image processing, and vertical and horizontal implementation of the same are also well known such that it is hard to find current patent art on the same. Indeed, as per above Holland discloses vertical and horizontal block prediction, and in case all the pixels are the same, this will meet the simple horizontal and vertical features above. Nonetheless, Zhao teaches the multiple categories including a simple vertical category, a simple horizontal category, a simple category, and a non-simple category, wherein the simple vertical category indicates, for each column of the block, that all of the pixel values of the block that are in that column are identical, wherein the simple horizontal category indicates, for each row of the block, that all of the pixel values of the block that are in that row are identical, and wherein the simple category indicates that all of the pixel values of the block are identical. (paragraph 0189, DM is a direct copy, and thus has identical pixel values for the block; horizontal and vertical intra prediction are also taught in the context of DM, thus as per above, making clear to one of skill in the art, vertical and horizontal blocks may be identical; and the diagonal modes may be interpreted as non-simple, particularly in the case the blocks are not identical)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that intra prediction may include predicting identical blocks per se, and in the vertical and horizontal directions, and that there would be less simple intra predictions before the effective filing date of the instant application because such was well known in the art as evinced by the above-discussed teaching of Zhao.
Independent claims 11 and 20 are method and computer program product claims, respectively, reciting features similar to claim 1, and are therefore also rendered obvious by the combination of Holland and Zhao for reasons similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Holland fails to disclose the recited; however, Zhao teaches wherein the block includes a luma block and multiple chroma blocks. (paragraph 0103, 2 chroma blocks per luma block)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that multiple chroma blocks may correspond to a luma block before the effective filing date of the instant application because such luma/chroma interpolations techniques were well known in the art and commonly used in block prediction well before the effective filing date as evinced by the above-discussed teaching of Zhao.
Regarding claim 19, Holland discloses wherein the video content is screen content. (paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0116, screen content coded)
Claim(s) 3-7, 9, 10 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holland in view of Zhao, in yet further view of He (US 2018/0014011).
Regarding claim 3, Holland does not well disclose the recited; however, He teaches based at least in part on the block classification being the simple vertical category, the simple horizontal category, or the simple category, skipping evaluation of the palette mode. (paragraph 0063, when a likeness threshold met, matching mode selected, and other evaluation skipped, it is noted that Palette mode relies on a relative color match-also see paragraphs 0081/0083)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the specified sequence and threshold termination teaching of He to the encoding system of Holland because He teaches to do so allows location of a matched block earlier, and termination of the mode search earlier, thereby saving encoding time and cost. (paragraph 0084)
Regarding claim 4, Holland does not well disclose the recited; however, He teaches wherein the evaluating the at least some of the multiple available encoding modes includes: determining a cost of encoding the block in a given encoding mode among the multiple encoding modes; and based at least in part on the cost of encoding the block in the given encoding mode being less than a threshold: selecting the given encoding mode as the encoding mode for the block; and skipping evaluation of one or more subsequent encoding modes in the evaluation order. (paragraph 0063, when a likeness threshold met, matching mode selected, and other evaluation skipped)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as per claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 5, Holland does not well disclose the recited; however, He teaches wherein the evaluating the at least some of the multiple encoding modes includes: determining a cost of encoding the block in the intra block copy mode; and based at least in part on the cost of encoding the block in the intra block copy mode being less than a threshold: selecting the intra block copy mode as the encoding mode for the block; and skipping evaluation of the palette mode and the directional spatial prediction mode. (paragraph 0063, when a likeness threshold met, matching mode selected, and other evaluation skipped, it is noted that IBC relies on a relative likeness match-also see paragraphs 0081/0083)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as per claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 6, Holland does not well disclose the recited; however, He teaches wherein the evaluating the at least some of the multiple encoding modes includes: determining a cost of encoding the block in the palette mode; and based at least in part on the cost of encoding the block in the palette mode being less than a threshold: selecting the palette mode as the encoding mode for the block; and skipping evaluation of the directional spatial prediction mode. (paragraph 0063, when a likeness threshold met, matching mode selected, and other evaluation skipped, it is noted that Palette mode relies on a relative color match-also see paragraphs 0081/0083)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as per claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 7, Holland does not well disclose the recited; however, when applied to Holland and Zhao, He teaches wherein the evaluating the at least some of the multiple encoding modes includes: based at least in part on the block classification being the simple vertical category, skipping evaluation of a horizontal spatial prediction mode; based at least in part on the block classification being the simple horizontal category, skipping evaluation of a vertical spatial prediction mode; or based at least in part on the block classification being the simple category, skipping evaluation of a chroma-from-luma mode. (paragraph 0063, when a likeness threshold met, matching mode selected, and other evaluation skipped; Holland paragraph 0078, teaches a preliminary classification of block, and Zhao paragraph 0189, teaches DM is a direct copy Chroma from Luma, thus when the preliminary classification classifies block as DM, further evaluation may be skipped)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as per claim 3 above.
Dependent claims 13, 14 and 16 are method claims reciting features similar to claims 3, 4 and 7, respectively, and are therefore also rendered obvious by the combination of Holland with Zhao and He for reasons similar to claim 3, 4 and 7.
Regarding claim 9, Holland fails to disclose the recited, but Zhao discloses DC and DM, (paragraphs 0126 and 0189, respectively) thus applied to Holland and Zhao, He teaches wherein the operations further comprise: determining that distortion for a DC prediction mode is smaller than a distortion threshold and/or determining that a cost of the DC prediction mode is smaller than a cost threshold; and based at least in part on the distortion for the DC prediction mode being smaller than the distortion threshold and/or the cost of the DC prediction mode being smaller than the cost threshold, skipping evaluation of a chroma-from-luma (CfL) mode for the multiple chroma blocks. (paragraph 0063, when a likeness threshold met, matching mode selected, and other evaluation skipped, note CfL is DM)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as per claim 3 above.
Dependent claim 17 is a method claim reciting features similar to claim 9 (including intermediate claim 8) and is therefore rendered obvious by the combination of Holland with Zhao and He for reasons similar to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, Holland fails to identically disclose the recited; however He teaches wherein the evaluation order is the intra block copy mode, the palette mode, and the directional spatial prediction mode. (Figures 14 and 19, for example in figure 14, Intra mode is evaluated at 1414, after evaluation of IBC at 1410; further, Palette mode is evaluated at 1426, after evaluation of IBC at 1424, since Palette mode may be considered an extension of IBC, this teaches an evacuation order of first IBC, then Palette extension, then default intra evaluation)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as per claim 3 above.
Dependent claim 18 is a method claim reciting features similar to claim 10 and is therefore rendered obvious by the combination of Holland with Zhao and He for reasons similar to claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, while Holland discloses intra, IBC and Palette, (paragraph 0030) Holland fails to identically disclose the implied order, though such may be considered as an obvious variation of limited elements; however, He teaches the given encoding mode is the intra block copy mode, and the one or more subsequent encoding modes are the palette mode and the directional spatial prediction mode; or the given encoding mode is the palette mode, and the one or more subsequent encoding modes are the directional spatial prediction mode. (Figures 14 and 19, for example in figure 14, Intra mode is evaluated at 1414, after evaluation of IBC at 1410; further, Palette mode is evaluated at 1426, after evaluation of IBC at 1424, since Palette mode may be considered an extension of IBC, this teaches an evacuation order of first IBC, then Palette extension, then default intra evaluation)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as per claim 3 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gisquet (US 2016/0100186) discloses IBC and Palette evaluation sequence.
Han (US 2020/0260107) describes chroma/luma block inter-relation.
Chernyak (US 2020/0382799) describes chroma/luma block inter-relation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
January 29, 2026