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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/25 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2013/0163664 A1 (“Guo”).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses a video decoding method comprising:
predicting a first subblock within a current block based on neighboring samples of the current block (e.g. see first PU within a CU predicted from neighboring pixels to the CU, paragraphs [0136]-[0140]); and
predicting a second subblock within the current block based on samples of the predicted first subblock (e.g. see second PU within the CU predicted from neighboring pixels including pixels of the first PU, paragraphs [0136]-[0140]),
wherein a size of the first subblock has a predetermined value, wherein a size of the second subblock has a predetermined value (e.g. see partition modes in Fig. 6 and/or Fig. 8, e.g. 144 and 146 in Fig. 6; for example, 8x8 CU divided into four 8x2 PUs, paragraphs [0136]-[0140]),
wherein a prediction block of the current block includes the predicted first subblock and the predicted second subblock (e.g. see short distance intra-prediction of the CU which includes the first PU and the second PU, paragraphs [0136]-[0140]),
wherein the prediction of the second subblock based on the samples of the predicted first subblock is performed based on a second intra prediction mode (e.g. see intra-prediction direction or mode, paragraphs [0157]-0158]), and
wherein the second intra prediction mode is determined based on at least one of: a shape of the subblock, and a direction that the block is divided (e.g. see certain intra-prediction modes may be restricted for certain asymmetric PUs, paragraphs [0157]-[0158]).
Regarding claim 2, Guo further discloses wherein the size of the first subblock is the same as the size of the second subblock (e.g. see partition modes in Fig. 6, e.g. 144 and 146; for example, 8x8 CU divided into four 8x2 PUs, paragraphs [0136]-[0140]).
Regarding claim 9, Guo further discloses wherein predicting the second subblock within the current block is also based on the neighboring samples of the current block (e.g. see second PU within the CU predicted from neighboring pixels including pixels of the first PU, paragraphs [0136]-[0140]), wherein the predicting of the second subblock based on the neighboring samples of the current block is performed based on a first intra prediction mode obtained from a bitstream (e.g. see intra-prediction modes such as shown in Fig. 5 obtained from the bitstream, paragraph [0112]; also see SDIP, paragraphs [0037]-[0039]).
Regarding claims 4-8 and 10-11, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 10630977 B2, Yoo et al., Method and apparatus for encoding/decoding a video signal
US 2020/0120338 A1, Lee et al., Method and device for processing video signal
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights