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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/9/25 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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, 3-5, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0272757 A1 (“Xu”) in view of US 2019/0124339 A1 (“Young”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, comprising: deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block (e.g. see decoding controller 516 in Fig. 5 extracts prediction parameters that include at least the intra prediction mode for a current block, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0078]-[0079]); deriving reference samples of the current block (e.g. see decoding controller 516 in Fig. 5 extracts prediction parameters that include at least reference pixel set selection information for a current block, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0078]-[0079]); and performing an intra prediction on the current block by using the intra prediction mode and the reference samples (e.g. see intra prediction module 512 generates the intra predictor of the current block according to the selected reference pixel, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0075], [0080]).
Although Xu discloses deriving the reference samples of the current block; performing an intra prediction on the current block by using the intra prediction mode and the reference samples, it is noted Xu differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose determining whether to perform filtering on the reference samples based on the intra prediction mode of the current block; determining a filter type applied to the reference samples based on whether to perform filtering on the reference samples; determining strength of a filter applied to the reference samples based on whether to perform filtering on the reference samples and the filter type; applying filtering to the reference samples based on the strength of the filter; and performing an intra prediction on the current block by using the filtered reference samples, wherein whether to perform filtering on the reference samples is determined based on whether the intra prediction mode is a predetermined mode, wherein the strength of the filtering applied to the reference samples is determined based on the intra prediction mode of the current block and a size of the current block. Young however, teaches determining whether to perform filtering on the reference samples based on the intra prediction mode of the current block (e.g. see determining whether to perform filtering on the reference samples based on prediction angle, paragraphs [0068]-[0075]; if, based on the prediction mode or angle, the filter strength is determined zero from Table 1, then no filter is to be selected (i.e., no filtering is to be performed); if, based on the prediction angle, the filter strength is not zero from Table 1, filtering is to be performed if, for example, the reference pixels are required for the specific prediction mode, otherwise, filtering is not to be performed even though the filter strength is not zero, see e.g. paragraph [0073]; as another example, determining whether to perform filtering on reference samples is based on angle delta (which is based on prediction angle) compared to a threshold, paragraph [0075]); determining a filter type applied to the reference samples based on whether to perform filtering on the reference samples (e.g. see determining the filter, e.g. n-tap filter where n may be odd integer, paragraph [0070], e.g. see Table 2, paragraphs [0077]-[0078] and [0088]-[0090]; thus, if filtering is to be performed, the filter is determined); determining strength of a filter applied to the reference samples based on whether to perform filtering on the reference samples and the filter type (e.g. see at least determining filter strength in 602 in Fig. 6 and at least Table 1; if filtering is to be performed, then the filter strength is selected as 1, 2 or 3, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0057], [0068]-[0075], which corresponds to specific filter such as (1, 2, 1), (5, 6, 5) and (2, 4, 4, 4, 2), paragraphs [0077]-[0078] and [0088]-[0090]); applying filtering to the reference samples based on the strength of the filter (e.g. see at least filtering, using the filter, the reference pixels to generate modified reference pixels in 604 in Fig. 6, paragraph [0087]); and performing an intra prediction on the current block by using the filtered reference samples (e.g. see at least generating a prediction block for the current block using the intra-prediction mode and the modified reference pixels 606 in Fig. 6, paragraph [0098]), wherein whether to perform filtering on the reference samples is determined based on whether the intra prediction mode is a predetermined mode (e.g. see at least Table 1; for example, for an 8x8 block, filtering can start for angle deltas greater than 8 (which corresponds to predetermined prediction mode or angle in the angle delta equation); also for example, for a 32x32 block, if prediction mode or angle is a vertical mode with 90 degrees angle, no filtering is performed, paragraphs [0068]-[0075]), wherein the strength of the filtering applied to the reference samples is determined based on the intra prediction mode of the current block and a size of the current block (e.g. see at least intra-prediction mode and current block size, paragraphs [0057], [0071]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Xu and Young before him/her, to modify the method and apparatus of video coding of Xu to include the above teaching of Young in order to reduce distortions.
Regarding claim 3, Xu further discloses wherein the reference samples comprise samples included in at least one of a reference sample line adjacent to a left side of the current block and a reference sample line adjacent to an upper side of the current block (e.g. see Fig. 2 shows a diagram illustrating selecting at least one horizontal reference pixel set from a first plurality of candidate neighboring pixel sets 222[1]-222[M] adjacent to an upper edge 212 of a current block 210 and selecting at least one vertical reference pixel set from a second plurality of candidate neighboring pixel set 224[1]-224[N] adjacent to a left edge 214 of the current block 210, e.g. see at least paragraph [0039]).
Regarding claim 4, although Xu discloses the reference sample line adjacent to the left side of the current block and the reference sample line adjacent to the upper side of the current block (e.g. see Fig. 2), it is noted Xu differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein the filtering applied to the reference samples is applied to samples included in at least one of the reference sample line adjacent to the left side of the current block and the reference sample line adjacent to the upper side of the current block. Young however, teaches wherein the filtering applied to the reference samples is applied to samples included in at least one of the reference sample line adjacent to the left side of the current block and the reference sample line adjacent to the upper side of the current block (e.g. see at least filtering, using the filter, the reference pixels to generate modified reference pixels in 604 in Fig. 6, paragraph [0087], and see Fig. 7 showing reference pixels along the left and upper side of the block, paragraph [0059]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claims 5, 7-9, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0272757 A1 (“Xu”) in view of US 2019/0124339 A1 (“Young”) in further view of US 2019/0238835 A1 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 2, although Xu discloses the reference samples, it is noted Xu differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose wherein the reference samples are derived based on an availability of each of the reference samples. Lee however, teaches wherein the reference samples are derived based on an availability of each of the reference samples (e.g. see derivation of reference samples based on availability, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0229]-[0230]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Xu, Young and Lee before him/her, to incorporate the above teachings of Lee into the method and apparatus of video coding of Xu as modified by Young in order to replace unavailable reference sample in a reference line to efficiently perform intra prediction.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites analogous limitations to the claims above and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 6-8 of the Remarks that the prior art does not teach newly added limitations “determining a filter type applied to the reference samples based on whether to perform filtering on the reference samples” and “determining strength of a filter applied to the reference samples based on whether to perform filtering on the reference samples, and the filter type” because Young merely teaches “determining whether to perform filtering in the process of determining the filter strength… the process for determining filter strength is performed for all the intra prediction mode.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the rejection above has been clarified in order to illustrate that the claim limitations remain unpatentable over Xu in view of Young. Also, there is nothing in the claim limitations that preclude the determining whether to perform filtering on the reference samples for all intra prediction mode; the claim limitations merely recite that the determination is “based on” the intra prediction mode of the current block. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “for the current block having the intra prediction mode as the predetermined mode, the process of determining the filter type and the strength of the filter would not be performed”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Not to mention that for specific prediction angle(s), filtering is not performed, see at least paragraphs [0073] and [0075].
Applicant also assert on page 8 that the prior art does not teach newly added limitations because “the processes of determining whether to perform filtering and determining the filter strength are clearly distinct and separate steps.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Young, in paragraphs [0068]-[0075], teaches to determining whether to perform filtering on the reference samples based on prediction angle. Paragraph [0073] for example teaches that if, based on the prediction angle, the filter strength is not zero from Table 1, filtering is to be performed if, for example, the reference pixels are required for the specific prediction mode, otherwise, filtering is not to be performed even though the filter strength is not zero. As another example, paragraph [0075] teaches to determining whether to perform filtering on reference samples is based on angle delta (which is based on prediction angle) compared to a threshold, paragraph [0075]. Thus, at least these paragraphs teach that determining whether to perform filtering and determining the filter strength are distinct and separate steps.
Conclusion
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 on (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