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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 25, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 10, and 12 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2019/0182481).
As per claim 1, Lee discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
deriving a reference sample line for a current block based on index information indicating one of a plurality of reference sample lines (¶ 210);
deriving an intra prediction mode for the current block (¶ 67);
checking whether an intra prediction mode-dependent reference sample filtering condition is satisfied based on the intra prediction mode (¶ 166 – 168; The examiner argues that Lee checks and derives an intra prediction mode that applies reference sample filtering. Applicant provides no specific indication as to what the condition is. The examiner argues that deriving an intra prediction mode that applies reference sample filtering satisfies this condition);
performing a reference sample filtering based on whether the intra prediction mode- dependent reference sample filtering condition is satisfied (¶ 166 - 168);
deriving a filter type for an interpolation to derive prediction samples based on the filtered reference samples, wherein the filtered reference samples are included in the reference sample line (¶ 102);
and deriving prediction samples for the current block by performing the interpolation based on the reference sample line, the intra prediction mode, and the interpolation filter (¶ 74 );
wherein the filter type is derived based on a size of the current block, a shape of the current block, whether an intra prediction mode-dependent reference sample filtering performing condition is satisfied, and the intra prediction mode (¶ 124, 168 and 190), wherein a first filter coefficients set or a second filter coefficients set used for the interpolation filter is selected based on whether the intra prediction mode-dependent reference sample filtering performing condition is satisfied (¶ 102, 168, and 193).
As per claim 3, Lee discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein a filter coefficients set is determined based on the filter type (¶ 74 and 166 – 168).
As per claim 4, Lee discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein a filter length and filter coefficients are determined based on the filter type (¶ 192).
As per claim 6, Lee discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the number of taps of the interpolation filter is 4 (¶ 69).
Regarding claim 7, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 6 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 16.
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) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ikonin (US 10,992,963).
As per claim 5, Lee discloses the image decoding method of claim 1.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the interpolation filter includes a Gaussian filter.
In the same field of endeavor, Ikonin teaches wherein the interpolation filter includes a Gaussian filter (column 12 lines 62 - 67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Lee in view of Ikonin. The advantage is improved video coding.
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 11.
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