DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 12/18/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 5, 7-14, 17, 19-26, 29, 31-38, 41 and 42-48 under the Jeon reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li et al. (herein after will be referred to as Li) (US 20190141318).
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, 11-13, 17, 19-20, 23-25, 29, 31-32, 35-37, 41, 43-44 and 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US 20190141318).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses
a method of decoding video data, the method comprising: [See Li [Fig. 6] Video decoder.]
generating a fusion of predictors from two or more reference lines of samples relative to a block of video data based on at least two intra-prediction modes, [See Li [Fig. 23 and 0247-0250]]
wherein generating the fusion of the predictors from the two or more reference lines of samples relative to the block of video data based on the at least two intra-prediction modes comprises: generating the fusion of predictors based on a weighted combination of the predictors from the two or more reference lines of samples based on the intra-prediction modes, comprising: [See Li [Fig. 23 and 0247-0250]]
generating first predictors in a first reference line of the two or more reference lines of samples using a first of the intra prediction modes; generating second predictors in a second reference line of the two or more reference lines of samples using a second of the intra prediction modes, wherein the first reference line is closer to the block of video data than the second reference line; [See Li [Fig. 23 and 0247-0250]] The intra-picture prediction from the different reference lines has different prediction modes (e.g., different prediction directions, or different non-directional prediction modes, or a mix of different directional and non-directional prediction modes).
applying a first weight to the first predictors; and applying a second weight to the second predictors; and decoding the block of video data using the fusion of predictors and the intra-prediction modes. [See Li [Fig. 23 and 0247-0250] Weighted prediction. Also, see 0010.]
Regarding claim 5, Li discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Li discloses
wherein the first weight is 0.75 and the second weight is 0.25. [See Li [0209-0210] Weights of ¾ and ¼.]
Regarding claim 7, Jeon discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Jeon does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: determining the first weight based on a position of a sample in the block and one or more of a width or a height of the block; and determining the second weight is based on the position of the sample and one or more of the width or the height of the block. [See Li [0209-0210] The weights applied depend on the position in the current block and size of the current block.]
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Li discloses
wherein generating the fusion of predictors comprises: filtering the two or more reference lines of samples using one of a low pass filter or a high pass filter to generate one or more prediction samples, and wherein decoding the block of video data comprises decoding the block of video data using the one or more prediction samples. [See Li [0186] Low pass filter. Also, see 0009, filtering of reference lines. Also, see 0099.]
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Li discloses
wherein the two or more reference lines of samples includes a first reference line from a set of reference lines of samples for a multiple reference line coding mode. [See Li [0010 and/or Fig. 13] Multiple reference lines.]
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses the method of claim 11. Furthermore, Li discloses
wherein the two or more reference lines of samples further includes a second reference line of samples adjacent and above the first reference line of samples. [See Li [0250] Weighted prediction uses multiple reference rows.]
Regarding claim 13, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 13. Furthermore, Jeon discloses a processor and memory [See Li [Fig. 1]]
Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 8 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 23, see examiners rejection for claim 11 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, see examiners rejection for claim 12 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 24.
Regarding claim 25, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 25. Furthermore, Jeon discloses an encoder [See Li [Figs. 4a-4b]]
Regarding claim 29, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 29.
Regarding claim 31, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 31.
Regarding claim 32, see examiners rejection for claim 8 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 32.
Regarding claim 35, see examiners rejection for claim 11 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 35.
Regarding claim 36, see examiners rejection for claim 12 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 36.
Regarding claim 37, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 37.
Regarding claim 41, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 41.
Regarding claim 43, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 43.
Regarding claim 44, see examiners rejection for claim 8 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 44.
Regarding claim 47, see examiners rejection for claim 11 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 47.
Regarding claim 48, see examiners rejection for claim 12 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 48.
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.
Claims 2, 14, 26 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20190141318) in view of Zhang et al. (herein after will be referred to as Zhang) (US 20240244191).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Li does not explicitly disclose
wherein the intra-prediction mode has a non-integer slope
However, Zhang does disclose
wherein the intra-prediction mode has a non-integer slope. [See Zhang [Fig. 17] Fractional slope mode.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Li to add the teachings of Zhang, in order to improve upon prediction fusion [See Zhang [0142]].
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 26, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 26.
Regarding claim 38, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 38.
Claims 10, 22, 34 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20190141318) in view of Ramasubramonian et al. (herein after will be referred to as Ramasubramonian) (US 20200007870).
Regarding claim 10, Jeon discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Jeon does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: determining the predictors from the two or more reference lines of samples using at least two different intra-prediction modes, wherein the at least two different intra-prediction modes are angular modes.
However, Ramasubramonian does disclose
further comprising: determining the predictors from the two or more reference lines of samples using at least two different intra-prediction modes, wherein the at least two different intra-prediction modes are angular modes. [See Ramasubramonian [0156-0157] Multiple prediction modes are used to obtain reference samples from multiple reference lines. The prediction modes are angular.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Jeon to add the teachings of Ramasubramonian, in order to incorporate coding techniques with better coding efficiency [See Ramasubramonian [0004]].
Regarding claim 22, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 22.
Regarding claim 34, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 34.
Regarding claim 46, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 46.
Claims 9, 21, 33 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20190141318) in view of Li et al. (herein after will be referred to as Li) (US Patent No. 12,010,316).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Li does not explicitly disclose
wherein generating the fusion of predictors is in response to an intra sub partition mode being disabled.
However, Li does disclose
wherein generating the fusion of predictors is in response to an intra sub partition mode being disabled. [See Li [Col. 19 lines 60-65] ISP is not allowed when TIMD is used. Also, see [Col. 20 lines 14-40] These Two TIMD modes are fused with weights to generate a weighted intra prediction.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Jeon to add the teachings of Li, in order to disable ISP when TIMD is utilized for intra-prediction. The benefits of disabling certain modes when another mode is enabled improves upon signaling for video compression.
Regarding claim 21, see examiners rejection for claim 9 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 33, see examiners rejection for claim 9 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 33.
Regarding claim 45, see examiners rejection for claim 9 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 45.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 18, 30 and 42 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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486