DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 01/20/2026 in which claim 2 is cancelled, claims 1, 4, and 5 are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
Examiner agrees the double patenting issue can be resolved upon finding allowable subject matter. Until then, the double patenting rejection will persist in the Office Actions so as to preserve the issue. Examiner agrees no further action is required at this time. Remarks, 4.
On pages 5–6 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the prior art is deficient for failing to teach or suggest the feature added by way of amendment. Examiner finds the argument moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Specifically, the rejection of claim 1 now additionally relies on the teachings of Lee-2, in combination with the teachings of Lee drawn to block shape influencing filter length, to teach or suggest the averred feature. See rejection, infra.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 6.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 10–12, and 19 of copending Application No. 16/757,002 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application of the reference sample filters based on pixel component and current block size and the filter coefficient selection represents substantial overlapping subject matter between the two applications.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 of this title, 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 1 and 3–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2019/0313116 A1), Park (US 2021/0297684 A1), Gu (US 2015/0110174 A1), Lee (US 2013/0301720 A1) (herein “Lee-3”), Yoo (US 2020/0137404 A1), and Lee (US 2014/0307784 A1) (herein “Lee-2”).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Lee, Park, Gu, Lee-3, Yoo, and Lee-2 teaches or suggests a video decoding method, the method comprising: determining a reference sample of a current block (Lee, ¶ 0181: teaches reference samples chosen for intra prediction from a set of reference samples corresponding to a reference sample line along the top or left boundary of the current block; see Lee, Fig. 11); applying a reference sample filter to the reference sample (Lee, Fig. 12: illustrates that the reference samples in the reference sample line can be subjected to filtering; Lee, ¶ 0162: teaches filtering reference samples in a reference sample line to achieve final reference samples); and performing intra-prediction using the filtered reference sample (Lee, ¶ 0181: teaches reference samples chosen for intra prediction from a set of reference samples corresponding to a reference sample line along the top or left boundary of the current block; see Lee, Fig. 11; Lee, ¶ 0153: explains an interpolation filter is chosen based on parameters such as intra prediction mode, intra prediction direction, whether the neighboring block is coded in intra or inter, whether the samples are on a boundary, and the size and shape of the current block; Lee, ¶ 0153: teaches filter length (i.e. number of taps), strength, and filter coefficients may be determined from a number of possibilities), wherein a filter type of the reference sample filter is determined based on a pixel component of the current block (Lee, ¶ 0133: teaches the intra prediction mode may be derived based on the pixel component (i.e. luma or chroma) of the block; Lee, ¶ 0153: explains an interpolation filter is chosen based on parameters such as intra prediction mode, intra prediction direction, whether the neighboring block is coded in intra or inter, whether the samples are on a boundary, and the size and shape of the current block; Examiner notes that if intra mode is based on pixel component and filtering is based on intra mode, then filtering is based on color component; While Examiner finds the teachings of Lee and Park are sufficient, in order to expedite prosecution, Examiner additionally relies on the teachings of Gu; Gu, ¶ 0074: explicitly teaches, “For the luma component, neighboring reference samples may be filtered before the intra prediction process.” (emphasis added); Also, in order to expedite prosecution, the rejection additionally relies on the teachings of Lee-3; Lee-3, ¶ 0125: teaches whether or not filtering is performed can be based on prediction mode of current and neighboring blocks, size, depth, component (luma or chroma), whether blocks are available, etc.; Lee-3, ¶¶ 0012 and 0191: teaches that selection of filter type means filter shape, filter tap, and filter coefficients and can be determined based on size of current block; Lee-3, ¶ 0011: teaches filtering may be determined based on component type (luma or chroma)), wherein a filter length of the reference sample filter applied to above reference samples is determined independently from a filter length of the reference sample filter applied to left reference samples (Examiner interprets this limitation in view of Applicant’s published paragraph [0295], wherein it is explained that it may be desirable to have different horizontal (for left samples) and vertical (for above samples) filter lengths for non-square blocks; Lee-2, ¶ 0098: teaches filter length for asymmetrically partitioned blocks may differ between horizontal and vertical filters; Lee, ¶ 0153: teaches filter length (i.e. number of taps), strength, and filter coefficients may be determined from a number of possibilities; Lee, ¶ 0153: explains an interpolation filter is chosen based on parameters such as intra prediction mode, intra prediction direction, whether the neighboring block is coded in intra or inter, whether the samples are on a boundary, and the size and shape of the current block; Lee-3, ¶¶ 0012 and 0191: teaches that selection of filter type means filter shape, filter tap, and filter coefficients and can be determined based on size of current block; Lee’s teaching in ¶ 0153 that the shape of the current block can influence filter length, especially when combined with Lee-2’s explicit teachings regarding filter length being determined independently between horizontal and vertical filters, would teach or suggest to one skilled in the art Applicant’s independent determination of filter length for the left and above reference samples), and wherein the reference sample filter is only performed when the current block is a directional intra prediction mode (Lee, ¶ 0153: explains an interpolation filter is chosen based on parameters such as intra prediction mode, intra prediction direction, whether the neighboring block is coded in intra or inter, whether the samples are on a boundary, and the size and shape of the current block; Park, ¶ 0300: teaches non-directional modes such as planar or DC mode do not get filtering; see also Lee-3, e.g. ¶¶ 0009–0010), wherein the reference sample filter is skipped when the directional intra prediction mode corresponds to a vertical mode or a horizontal mode (Park, ¶ 0300: teaches non-directional modes such as planar or DC mode do not get filtering; see also Lee-3, e.g. ¶¶ 0009–0010; While perhaps unnecessary to sustain the obviousness of the claimed features, to expedite prosecution, Examiner additionally relies on the teachings of Yoo, ¶ 0177: which explains filtering of reference samples for Intra_DC, horizontal, and vertical modes can be omitted to improve performance).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lee, with those of Park, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of reference sample filtering for the purpose of performing intra-prediction would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as demonstrated by Park’s teaching of filtering reference samples based on intra-prediction mode, the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lee and Park used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lee and Park, with those of Gu, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of reference sample filtering for the purpose of performing intra-prediction would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as demonstrated by Gu’s teaching of filtering reference samples based on component, the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lee, Park, and Gu used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lee, Park, and Gu, with those of Lee-3, because all four references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of reference sample filtering for the purpose of performing intra-prediction would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as demonstrated by Gu’s and Lee-3’s teaching of filtering reference samples based on component, the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lee, Park, Gu, and Lee-3 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lee, Park, Gu, and Lee-3, with those of Yoo, because all five references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of reference sample filtering for the purpose of performing intra-prediction would be led to their relevant teachings, because, as Yoo explains, restricting filtering to intra-prediction modes that do not include horizontal and vertical can “prevent the distortion of a value of the reference sample attributable to filtering (Yoo, ¶ 0177),” and because, as demonstrated by Gu’s and Yoo’s teaching of filtering reference samples, the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lee, Park, Gu, Lee-3, and Yoo used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lee, Park, Gu, and Lee-3, and Yoo, with those of Lee-2, because all six references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of reference sample filtering for the purpose of performing intra-prediction would be led to their relevant teachings, because, as Lee explains, filter length can be determined based on block shape while Lee-2 explains that for asymmetric block shapes, the horizontal and vertical filter lengths are likely to differ such that the two references would teach or suggest block asymmetry influencing filter length asymmetry, and because, as demonstrated by Lee’s and Lee-2’ teachings, the combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lee, Park, Gu, Lee-3, Yoo, and Lee-2 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lee, Park, Gu, Lee-3, Yoo, and Lee-2 teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the filter type of the reference sample filter is selected based on an intra-prediction mode of the current block (Lee, ¶ 0153: explains an interpolation filter is chosen based on parameters such as intra prediction mode, intra prediction direction, whether the neighboring block is coded in intra or inter, whether the samples are on a boundary, and the size and shape of the current block; Applicant argues Lee’s filtering of the prediction samples is not the same as filtering the reference samples; Examiner does not agree, but in order to expedite prosecution, Park is relied upon to teach that the skilled artisan would find it obvious to filter the reference samples in order to achieve prediction samples that are the result of filtering; Park, ¶ 0145: teaches, “The decoder may filter the reference sample depending on an intra-prediction mode.” (emphasis added)).
Claim 4 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method rather than a decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 5 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method and a step of transmitting said encoded bitstream rather than a decoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cho (US 2020/0021828 A1) teaches that reference sample lines can be determined based on whether the current block boundary corresponds to a CTB boundary (Cho, ¶¶ 0163–0165).
Zhao (US 2018/0091825 A1) teaches the 4-tap 1/32 precision interpolation filter (Zhao, ¶ 0086).
Lee (US 2019/0200012 A1) teaches filter coefficients adding up to 64 (¶ 0151). Lee also teaches applying a filter to a reference sample prior to or after it is selected as a prediction sample (e.g. ¶¶ 0195–0196).
Alshina (US 2016/0007032 A1) teaches in HEVC an inter-chroma prediction interpolation filter uses a 4-tap interpolation filter (Alshina, ¶ 0229).
Chang et al., "Multiple Reference Line Coding for Most Probable Modes in Intra Prediction," 2019 Data Compression Conference, 2019. This reference does not have a “good” date, but explains, “To reduce complexity arising from additional lines to be checked at encoder side, we further propose to restrict the MRL to angular most probable modes (MPMs) only.” (emphasis added).
S. Matsuo, S. Takamura, and Y. Yashima, “Intra prediction with spatial gradients and multiple reference lines,” in Picture Coding Symposium, 2009. PCS 2009. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–4.
Li (US 2019/0141318 A1) Li, ¶ 0155: teaches coding a reference line index in the bitstream; Li, ¶ 0155: teaches intra-prediction reference lines are identified by the reference line index value; see also Li, ¶ 0153: describing the step as “selecting” (see previous version of the claim using “selecting” rather than “deriving; Li, ¶ 0131: teaches the reference lines have reference samples contained within the reference lines that are “derived” Li, ¶ 0012: teaches reference samples may or may not be subjected to in-loop filtering before being used as reference samples; Li, ¶¶ 0009 and 0100: teaches smoothing filters used for samples in non-adjacent reference lines, i.e. based on a particular type of reference line; Li, Fig. 43: explains filtering occurs only for reference lines that have an index that is not zero, i.e. outside an adjacent reference line; Li, ¶ 0186: teaches an example of reference line filtering, importantly explaining the reference line index 1, for a non-adjacent reference line, is subjected to the filtering; Li, ¶ 0193: explains that a filtered reference line could receive a different reference line index indicating it is a filtered reference line; see also Li, ¶¶ 0188 and 0201 Li, ¶ 0186: teaches reference line sample filtering wherein the filtering only uses neighboring samples within the reference line; Li, ¶ 0186: explains the filtering is a 1D filter using only the sample values within the reference line; Examiner notes the example of [1,2,1]/4 also teaches the samples are neighbors Examiner finds this obvious in view of the level of skill in the art especially in view of the complexities introduced by MRL and the motivation to simplify the evaluation of MRLs as demonstrated in Li, ¶¶ 0317–0341: describing encoder-side decisions and rough-mode decisions (RMD) that simplify an otherwise exhaustive search/evaluation.
Liu (US 2017/0353719 A1) teaches interpolation filters at 1/64 precision (e.g. ¶ 0022).
Li (US 2016/0234492 A1) teaches that pixels outside a CTU boundary are considered unavailable as reference samples and may need to be interpolated (¶ 0118), which would suggest that CTU or CTB boundaries would create a special case needing additional computation in order to produce a reference sample line.
Wang (US 2013/0182775 A1) teaches a coding technique in which CTB boundaries control whether prediction samples are available or not (¶ 0126).
Yoo (US 2019/0200011 A1) teaches non-angular intra prediction modes not getting filtering (e.g. ¶ 0213).
Van Der Auswera (US 2012/0082224 A1) teaches DC and planar modes potentially not getting smoothing filtering while angular modes may get filtering (¶ 0088).
Jeon (US 2020/0288146 A1) explains filtering for Intra_DC, horizontal, and vertical modes can be omitted to improve performance (¶ 0205).
Kossentini (US 2012/0134425 A1) teaches different filter lengths for horizontal and vertical interpolation (¶ 0037).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481