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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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) 1 – 4, 9 – 12, and 17 - 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai et al (US 2020/0204824, hereafter Lai) in view of YE et al (US 2017/0251213, hereafter YE) in further view of Lee (US 2020/0145648).
As per claim 1, Lai discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
deriving inter prediction samples based on an inter prediction for a current block (¶ 52 - 55);
deriving intra prediction samples based on an intra prediction for the current block (¶ 52 - 55); and
deriving a prediction block for the current block based on a weighted sum derived by applying weights to the inter prediction samples and the intra prediction samples (¶ 50 - 55),
wherein the weights are set based on a shape of the current block, and
wherein for an intra prediction mode being equal to a vertical mode and a height of the current block being equal to N (¶ 55 - 57).
However, Lai does not explicitly teach a weight derived for an intra prediction sample at a sample position based on a width of the current block being N is different from a weight derived for the intra prediction sample at said sample position based on the width of the current block being greater than N.
In the same field of endeavor YE teaches a weight derived for an intra prediction sample at a sample position based on a width of the current block being N is different from a weight derived for the intra prediction sample at said sample position based on the width of the current block being greater than N (¶ 56 and 76).
However, Lai or Ye does not explicitly teach wherein the weights are set according to a size of the current block.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein the weights are set according to a size of the current block (¶ 15 and 221).
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 Lai in view of Ye in further view of Lee. The advantage is improving video encoding.
As per claim 2, Lai discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the sum of a weight of the intra prediction sample and a weight of the inter predication sample is a power of two (¶ 53).
As per claim 3, Lai discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the intra prediction samples are derived based on a vertical mode, and
wherein a first weight of a first intra prediction sample is used for a first distance between an above reference sample of the current block and the first intra prediction sample, wherein a second weight of a second intra prediction sample is used for a second distance between the above reference sample and the second intra prediction sample, wherein based on the second distance being greater than the first distance, the first weight is greater than the second weight (¶ 52; the weighting coefficient is related to the Intra mode direction. For example, w_Intra may decrease along the Intra mode direction.).
As per claim 4, Lai discloses the image decoding method of claim 3, wherein a third weight of a first inter prediction sample is used for the first distance, wherein a fourth weight of a second inter prediction sample is used for the second distance, wherein based on the second distance being greater than the first distance, the third weight is smaller than the fourth weight (¶ 52; the weighting coefficient is related to the Intra mode direction. … On the other hand, w_Inter may increase along the Intra mode direction.).
Regarding clam 9, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 9.
Regarding clam 10, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding clam 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 11.
Regarding clam 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding clam 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding clam 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding clam 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 19.
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
Prosecution Insights