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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed September 4, 2025, with respect to claim 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Non-Final Office Correspondence of June 4, 2025 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 - 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al (US 2018/0255304, hereafter Jeon) in view of Park et al (US 2021/0274205, hereafter Park).
As per claim 1, Jeon discloses an intra prediction method performed by a video decoding apparatus, the intra prediction method comprising:
decoding an intra prediction mode and an adaptive precision flag of a current block from a bitstream (¶ 247), wherein the adaptive precision flag indicates whether or not to use adaptive precision for directionality of the intra prediction mode, and wherein the intra prediction mode is classified into a horizontal directional prediction mode and a vertical directional prediction mode with reference to a top-left intra prediction mode (¶ 248 and 249);
checking the intra prediction mode; when the intra prediction mode is a directional prediction mode: determining precision for the directionality of the intra prediction mode using the precision mode and the adaptive precision flag (¶ 250 - 262); and generating a prediction block of the current block using the precision and the intra prediction mode (¶ 298).
However, Jeon does not explicitly teach determining a precision mode for the directionality according to directional prediction modes of neighboring blocks of the current block.
In the same field of endeavor, Park teaches determining a precision mode for the directionality according to directional prediction modes of neighboring blocks of the current block (¶ 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Jeon in view of Park. The advantage is improving video coding.
As per claim 2, Jeon discloses the intra prediction method of claim 1, wherein determining the precision mode includes: determining one of a vertical precision mode, a horizontal precision mode, or a normal precision mode as the precision mode for the directionality of the intra prediction mode (¶ 248 and 249).
As per claim 3, Jeon discloses the intra prediction method of claim 2, wherein the vertical precision mode uses directionality with high precision or reference precision for the vertical directional prediction mode, and uses directionality with low precision or the reference precision for the horizontal directional prediction mode (¶ 201 – 205, 248, and 249).
As per claim 4, Jeon discloses the intra prediction method of claim 2, wherein the horizontal precision mode uses directionality with high precision or reference precision for the horizontal directional prediction mode, and wherein the horizontal precision mode uses directionality with low precision or the reference precision for the vertical directional prediction mode (¶ 201 – 205, 248, and 249).
As per claim 5, Jeon discloses the intra prediction method of claim 2, wherein the normal precision mode uses directionality of reference precision for the intra prediction mode (¶ 201 – 205, 248, and 249).
As per claim 6, Jeon discloses the intra prediction method of claim 3, wherein the high precision is 1/64 sample precision, the low precision is 1/16 sample precision, and the reference precision is 1/32 sample precision (¶ 201 – 205, 248, and 249).
As per claim 8, Jeon discloses the intra prediction method of claim 3, wherein determining the precision of the directionality includes: determining the precision according to the adaptive precision flag when the precision mode is the vertical precision mode and the intra prediction mode is the vertical directional prediction mode, and wherein the precision is determined as the high precision when the adaptive precision flag is 1 and determined as the reference precision when the adaptive precision flag is 0 (¶ 248 and 249).
As per claim 9, Jeon discloses the intra prediction method of claim 3, wherein determining the precision of the directionality includes: determining the precision according to the adaptive precision flag when the precision mode is the vertical precision mode and the intra prediction mode is the horizontal directional prediction mode, and wherein the precision is determined as the low precision when the adaptive precision flag is 1 and determined as the reference precision when the adaptive precision flag is zero (0) (¶248, and 249).
As per claim 11, Jeon discloses the intra prediction method of claim 4, wherein determining the precision of the directionality includes: determining the precision according to the adaptive precision flag when the precision mode is the horizontal precision mode and the intra prediction mode is the horizontal directional prediction mode, and wherein the precision is determined as the high precision when the adaptive precision flag is 1 and determined as the reference precision when the adaptive precision flag is zero (0) (¶ 248 and 249).
As per claim 12, Jeon discloses the intra prediction method of claim 4, wherein determining the precision of the directionality includes: determining the precision according to the adaptive precision flag when the precision mode is the horizontal precision mode and the intra prediction mode is the vertical directional prediction mode, and wherein the precision is determined as the low precision when the adaptive precision flag is 1 and determined as the reference precision when the adaptive precision flag is zero (0) (¶248 and 249).
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 7, 10, and 13 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 CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 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, 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487