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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/5/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee at least fails to disclose or teach "defining a prediction unit (PU) shape comprising a plurality of hexagonal pixel shapes; and using the defined PU shape to perform intra-prediction on a block of hexagonally-shaped pixels of the hexagonally-sampled image; wherein the block of hexagonally-shaped pixels represents one of: a parallelogram PU, a zigzag- square PU, or a hexagon PU in which two adjacent sides form 120 degrees" as featured in Claim. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee discloses defining a prediction unit (PU) shape comprising a plurality of hexagonal pixels in [0054 and [0065]) and using the defined PU shape to perform intra-prediction on a block of pixels of the hexagonally-sampled image in [0077 and 0084]. Lee also discloses a zigzag-square PU in Fig 10, which shows zig zag shape. Therefore, rejection remains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 4-7, 10-11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060268982A1-Lee et al (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”), in view of US 20090244084 A1-Dammertz et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Dam”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method for intra prediction of a hexagonally-sampled image having a regular grid of hexagonally-shaped pixels (Fig. 3), comprising:
defining a prediction unit (PU) shape comprising a plurality of hexagonal pixels ([0054 and [0065]); and
using the defined PU shape to perform intra-prediction on a block of pixels of the hexagonally-sampled image ([0077 and 0084]).
Lee discloses hexagonally shaped macroblock, Lee fails to disclose in detail that the pixels itself are hexagonally shaped.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dam discloses pixels itself are hexagonally shaped (Fig. 1, 2c-2d, fig. 3; [0050], hexagonal pixels)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lee to disclose wherein the pixels itself are hexagonally shaped as taught by Dam, to achieve a smoother representation of objects, while image processing algorithms can be implemented in a more efficient way ([0055-0056], Dam).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, the PU shape comprising a zigzag-square PU formed with an even number of rows, where each row has a half-pel offset with respect to adjacent rows (Fig 10 shows zig zag shape).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the method of claim 4, the zigzag-square PU having top reference pixels forming a horizontal line adjacent to a top edge of the PU shape, and left reference pixels form a zigzag vertical line, where each row has a half-pel offset with respect to adjacent rows, positioned adjacent a left edge of the PU shape (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, the PU shape comprising a rectangular-zigzag PU formed with an odd number of rows, where each row has a half-pel offset with respect to adjacent rows (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses the method of claim 6, the rectangular-zigzag PU having top reference pixels forming a horizontal line adjacent to a top edge of the PU shape, and left reference pixels forming a zigzag vertical line, where each row has a half-pel offset with respect to adjacent rows, positioned adjacent the left edge of the PU shape (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses the method of claim 1, the PU shape comprising an arrow PU having a convex vertex and a matching inverted vertex on horizontally opposed sides (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the method of claim 10, the arrow PU having top reference pixels forming a horizontal line adjacent to a top edge of the PU shape, and left reference pixels forming a repeating convex shape adjacent the inverted vertex (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 16, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, analyses are analogous to those presented for claim 1 and are applicable for claim 17.
Claim(s) 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20060268982A1-Lee et al (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”), US 20090244084 A1-Dammertz et al (Hereinafter referred to as “Dam”), in view of US 20180255304 A1-Jeon et al (hereinafter referred to as “Jeon”).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses the method of claim 1 (See claim 1),
Lee fails to disclose the PU shape comprising a parallelogram PU, the method further comprising: setting a table including a plurality of intra prediction modes respectively corresponding to a plurality of intra prediction angles; and selecting, for encoding/decoding the hexagonally-sampled image, one of the plurality of intra prediction modes, from the set table, wherein a number of the plurality of intra prediction modes included in the set table is 33, the set table including:
predModelntra 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 intraPredAngle 32 22 15 9 4 0 -3 -6 -9 -12 -15 predModelntra 13 14 15 16 17 #18 19 20 210 22 = = 23 intraPredAngle -17 -20 -23 -26 -29 -32 -29 -26 -23 -20 -17 predModelntra 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 £33 =~ © 34 intraPredAngle -15 -12 -9 -6~— -3 0 4 9 15 22 32 |
However, in the same field of endeavor, Jeon disclose PU shape comprising a parallelogram PU (Fig. 9, parallelogram shape), the method further comprising: setting a table including a plurality of intra prediction modes respectively corresponding to a plurality of intra prediction angles ([0153]); and selecting, for encoding/decoding the hexagonally-sampled image, one of the plurality of intra prediction modes, from the set table, wherein a number of the plurality of intra prediction modes included in the set table is 33, the set table including:
predModelntra 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 intraPredAngle 32 22 15 9 4 0 -3 -6 -9 -12 -15 predModelntra 13 14 15 16 17 #18 19 20 210 22 = = 23 intraPredAngle -17 -20 -23 -26 -29 -32 -29 -26 -23 -20 -17 predModelntra 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 £33 =~ © 34 intraPredAngle -15 -12 -9 -6~— -3 0 4 9 15 22 32 | (Fig. 14-15)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lee to disclose the PU shape comprising a parallelogram PU, the method further comprising: setting a table including a plurality of intra prediction modes respectively corresponding to a plurality of intra prediction angles; and selecting, for encoding/decoding the hexagonally-sampled image, one of the plurality of intra prediction modes, from the set table, wherein a number of the plurality of intra prediction modes included in the set table is 33, the set table including:
predModelntra 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 intraPredAngle 32 22 15 9 4 0 -3 -6 -9 -12 -15 predModelntra 13 14 15 16 17 #18 19 20 210 22 = = 23 intraPredAngle -17 -20 -23 -26 -29 -32 -29 -26 -23 -20 -17 predModelntra 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 £33 =~ © 34 intraPredAngle -15 -12 -9 -6~— -3 0 4 9 15 22 32 as taught by Jeon, to improve coding efficiency be defining angular modes ([0208], Jeon).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 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.
Claims 2-3, 8-9 allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LERON BECK whose telephone number is (571)270-1175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5pm.
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 at (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.
LERON . BECK
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/LERON BECK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights