DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 03/02/2026 as a Request for Continued Examination.
In the filed response, claims 1, 18, 21, and 22 have been amended, where claims 1, 18, and 21 are independent claims. Further, Claim 19 was previously canceled. Please note, the index of claims has been updated (10/27/2025) to reflect the canceled claim.
Accordingly, Claims 1-18 and 20-22 have been examined and are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-14, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Goel US 2008/0310509 A1, hereinafter referred to as Goel (see PTO 892). Please see examiner’s responses below for details.
3. Applicant argues Chen 557 does not teach or fairly suggest “wherein the set of sub-pixel positions comprises at least quarter-pixel positions in eight cardinal positions around the integer-pixel position” as recited in amended claim 1. Applicant further argues that Li also does not address the aforementioned limitation, since Li’s “1/4-pixel positions are never searched around an integer pixel position” (pg. 11 of remarks). Thus, Applicant asserts the cited references do not disclose all of the features of claim 1.
4. After carefully considering the art of record in light of Applicant’s remarks, the examiner agrees that both Chen 557 and Li do not teach and/or suggest, either alone or in combination, the amended features of claim 1. However based on further searches, new prior art Goel was identified which is deemed relevant, since fig. 4 illustrates example sub-pixel positions around an integer pixel, which in turn, are surrounded by sub-pixels in eight positions at a quarter distance from said integer pixel, i.e. “wherein the set of sub-pixel positions comprises at least quarter-pixel positions in eight cardinal positions around the integer-pixel position”. For example, integer pixel 410F (dark point) has eight neighboring sub-pixels marked Q that represent 1/4-pixel positions around the position of integer pixel 410F. As such, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the limitation, the examiner therefore respectfully submits that Goel reasonably addresses the amended features of claim 1. The same also applies to independent claims 18 and 21 which recite similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, for the reasons presented, the examiner respectfully submits Chen (previously Chen 557), in view of Goel, teach and/or suggest all of the features of claims 1, 18, and 21, given their BRI. Please see office action below for details.
5. Applicant’s response and amendment with regards to the objection of claim 22 is acknowledged. For this reason, the objection is withdrawn.
6. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
7. Accordingly, Claims 1-18 and 20-22 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 16-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. US 2025/0310557 A1 (with reference to Provisional Application No. 63/435,369), in further view of Goel US 2008/0310509 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chen and Goel, respectfully.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Chen 557 is found to teach and/or suggest “A computing system, comprising: one or more processors, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the computer-readable storage medium storing computer- readable instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors [See encoder 20 and decoder 30 in figs. 2A and 2B, respectively (e.g. para 0087)], perform associated operations comprising:
matching a template of a current block to a template in a searched region [Intra template matching search area is shown in fig. 16, which finds support in fig. 15 of the priority document]; determining an integer-pixel position of a block vector of a matching block corresponding to the matched template [In the context of performing a fractional motion search, para 0281-0282 first describe searching for the best N integer motion vectors. Also please note para 0285-0286 regarding the interchangeable use of motion and block vectors. Corresponding priority support can be found on pg. 32, for example]; template matching the integer-pixel position against a set of sub-pixel positions around the integer-pixel position [¶0286 shows template matching may be used to find the best fractional motion. The disclosed motion search includes applying a half-pel refinement around each of the N integer motion vectors (e.g. ¶0283). See pg. 32 of priority support.], wherein the set of sub-pixel positions comprises at least quarter-pixel positions in eight cardinal positions around the integer-pixel position; [However Chen’s teachings do not address the foregoing limitation. Regarding “quarter-pixel positions”, please refer to Goel below]; and deriving reconstructed values of the matching block at the determined sub- pixel position around the integer-pixel position as predicted sample values of the current block.” [Regarding deriving reconstructed values, see the encoder and decoder representations in Figs. 2A and 2B (same figures in priority document), respectively, where the fractional motion search method of Chen 557 can be executed accordingly] Although Chen performs template matching to find the best fractional motion, the fractional motion is in “half-pixel positions” versus the required “quarter-pixel positions”. To address these newly amended features, the work of Goel from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the set of sub-pixel positions comprises at least quarter-pixel positions in eight cardinal positions around the integer-pixel position” [See fig. 4 which depicts sub-pixel positions (‘H’ and ‘Q’) around integer pixels (dark circles). Those sub-pixel positions marked with a ‘Q’ are at a quarter distance from each integer pixel located in eight cardinal positions. See for e.g. the eight neighboring quarter distance sub-pixels Q that surround integer pixel 410F] Given the teachings of Goel above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Chen’s intra template-matching prediction (‘Intra TMP’) and fractional motion search/refinement with Goel’s sub-pixel interpolation which can be performed with reduced computational complexity (fewer taps) so as to reduce the resource requirements, while attaining a reasonable level of accuracy to represent a scene (e.g. ¶0056).
Regarding claim 2, (Previously Presented) Chen and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the one or more processors are configured to derive reconstructed values of the matching block at the determined sub-pixel position by applying an interpolation filter.” [See ¶0307-0309 with respect to an interpolation process for template matching. Corresponding priority support may also be found on, for e.g. pg. 21 (i.e. interpolation filters)]
Regarding claim 5, (Original) Chen and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the one or more processors are configured to pad an input sample which is not available by copying a closest reconstructed sample in the matching block.” [See for e.g. para 0424 of Chen 557 where repeat padding may be applied on one mor more samples in a same row or column in response to determining said samples are not available. See pg. 32-33 for priority support]
Regarding claim 6, (Original) Chen and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen further teaches and/or suggests “wherein a sub-pixel position around the integer-pixel position comprises a precision and a direction [See for e.g. para 0421 regarding a precision and refinement directions. Priority support can be found on for e.g. pg. 32]; wherein the precision comprises a magnitude of an offset from the integer- pixel position [Same as above, where, for example, a quarter-pel precision indicates a displacement amount of a quarter pixel relative to the integer-pixel position]; and wherein the direction comprises one of a plurality of cardinal directions from the integer-pixel position” [The refinement direction comprises horizontal and vertical directions which are one of the plurality of possible directions relative to the integer-pixel position]. Although Chen’s teachings are deemed relevant given the BRI of the above limitation, the work of Goel from the same or similar field of endeavor is also relied on to teach and/or suggest these features. [Please refer to fig. 4 and ¶0051-¶0056 for support] The motivation for combining Chen and Goel has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Chen and Goel teach all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen further teaches/suggests a potential pixel refinement set of 1/4 -pel, ½-pel, and ¾ -pel, i.e. “three sub-pixel precisions”. [See Chen’s fractional motion refinement for three precision levels in for e.g. ¶0295]. However, instead of having “eight cardinal directions” as required, Chen only teaches two horizontal and two vertical directions (positive and negative values). Considering Chen’s three sub-pel precisions above, the work of Goel from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach/suggest the eight cardinal directions corresponding to two fractional pixels (1/2 and 1/4), i.e. “wherein a set of sub-pixel positions around the integer-pixel position comprises twenty-four combinations of precision and direction, each precision selected from three sub-pixel precisions and each direction selected from eight cardinal directions.” [Recognizing Chen’s three sub-pixel precisions above, Fig. 4 of Goel discloses the eight cardinal directions for two of the sub-pixel precisions (1/4 and 1/2)] The motivation for combining Chen and Goel has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 8, (Original) Chen and Goel teach and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 7, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the three sub-pixel precisions comprise 1/4-pixel precision, 1/2-pixel precision, and 3/4-pixel precision.” [See for e.g. ¶0295 and ¶0421 with respect to the three fractional-pel levels of precision]
Regarding claim 9, (Original) Chen and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen however does not appear to address the features of claim 9. On the other hand, Goel from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more processors are configured to template match the integer-pixel position against sub-pixel positions around the integer-pixel position by interpolating the matched template for each respective sub-pixel position.” [See for e.g. ¶0051-¶0054 regarding interpolation during sub-pixel motion estimation] The motivation for combining Chen and Goel has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 10, (Original) Chen and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, in a bitstream, a first flag indicating to reference a sub-pixel position around an integer-pixel position for intra template matching prediction ("intra TMP"). [See for e.g. ¶0436 of Chen regarding a first flag indicating whether the TM is used for obtaining the fractional motion information for a current block. Corresponding priority support is on pg. 32, for example (i.e. an extra flag)]
Regarding claim 16, (Previously Presented) Chen and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to read a first flag from a bitstream; and the one or more processors are configured to interpolate reconstructed values of the matching block at the determined sub-pixel position around the integer-pixel position as predicted sample values of the current block based on the first flag.” [See for e.g. ¶0295-¶0296, where a signaled flag can be used to indicate whether fractional motion refinement is applied or not. If applied, then a fractional pel-level of precision can be selected from a refinement set for performing fractional motion refinement]
Regarding claim 17, (Original) Chen and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 16, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the one or more processors are configured to read a second flag from the bitstream; and the one or more processors are configured to determine the sub-pixel position around the integer-pixel position based on the second flag indicating the sub-pixel position around the integer-pixel position.” [Please refer to citations above for claim 16. Since the selected refinement from the refinement set can be explicitly derived, which is understood to mean via a signaled syntax element, a sub-pixel position can be determined for performing fractional motion refinement]
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 1. As to required hardware and software, please see for e.g. ¶0087 of Chen.
Regarding claim 21, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Chen teaches and/or suggests “A method of generating and storing a bitstream associated with one or more pictures, the method comprising: generating a bitstream comprising a first flag indicating to reference a sub- pixel position around an integer-pixel position for intra template matching prediction ("intra TMP") [See for e.g. ¶0295-0296. A signaled flag indicates whether fractional motion refinement is applied or not. If applied, a fractional pel-level of precision can be selected from a refinement set for performing fractional motion refinement] and a second flag indicating a quarter pixel position among a set of sub-pixel positions around the integer-pixel position in a diagonal direction [¶0295-¶0296 show the selected refinement from the refinement set can be explicitly derived, which is understood to mean via a signaled syntax element. As such, one fractional level of precision from a set of possible values can be selected to perform fractional motion refinement around an integer-pixel position (1/4- pel). However, the directions are not diagonal. See Goel below for support]; and storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.” [See ¶0502 with respect to storing a bitstream in a non-transitory CRM generated by the methods of Chen 557] Although Chen’s teachings are deemed relevant, the refinement directions are confined to the horizontal and vertical directions (¶0296). For this reason, Goel from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest the required “diagonal direction” [Please refer to fig. 4 for support] The motivation for combining Chen and Goel has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Claims 11-15, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Goel, and in further view of Lee et al. US 11,575,925 B2, hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 11, (Original) Chen and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, in a bitstream, a second flag indicating one among a set of sub-pixel positions around the integer-pixel position. [See for e.g. ¶0295-¶0296 with respect to explicitly/implicitly deriving selected motion refinement from a refinement set corresponding to a fractional-pel level. Explicit derivation is construed to mean via signaled syntax elements (e.g. flag). Also please note a second flag including an index value in ¶0418. Priority support may be found on pgs. 31-32, where said information is construed as representing sub-pixel positions around the integer-pixel position]. Although the teachings of Chen teach and/or suggest the aforementioned features given their BRI (where Goel does not), the work of Lee is brought in from the same or similar field of endeavor to provide further support. [See for e.g. col. 37 lines 3-8 with respect to motion vector resolution (i.e. precision) information (e.g. syntax elements – col 7 lines 52-62), where said resolution can be selected from a set of possible values] Although Lee’s motion vector precision set contains values of integer-precision, it does include fractional precision values, which in turn can be selected based on the required precision level via signaled information. Thus, Lee’s teachings are deemed relevant. For the reasons presented, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coding methods of Chen for intra template-matching prediction (‘Intra TMP’) and fractional motion search/refinement and Goel’s sub-pixel interpolation, with the teachings of Lee which allow for improving compression efficiency and reducing computational complexity (col. 1 lines 48-61).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 11, since both Chen and Lee teach and/or suggest a means for selecting a refined motion vector from a fractional-pel level refinement set.
Regarding claim 13, (Original) Chen, Goel, and Lee teach all the limitations of claim 11, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although the work of Chen and Goel are deemed relevant, they do not appear to address the features of claim 13. Lee on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit a precision of the one among the set of sub-pixel positions in a first syntax element of the bitstream, and to transmit a direction of the one among the set of sub-pixel positions in a second syntax element of the bitstream [See for e.g. Lee’s claim 2, where signaled information (e.g. syntax elements) describes a refinement motion vector which includes refinement motion vector precision information (e.g. first syntax) and also refinement motion vector direction index information (e.g. second syntax)] trailing the first syntax element.” [Other than providing examples (e.g. ¶0190), the filed specification does not appear to provide any clear advantage for specifying the syntax order as claimed. Thus, although Lee does not explicitly address the order in which said information is signaled, Lee’s ‘information’ does teach both the motion fractional precision-level and the direction and is therefore deemed relevant, with the ordering of this information considered to be within the level of skill in the art] The motivation for combining Chen, Goel, and Lee has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the system of Claim 13, since Lee’s signaled ‘information’ addresses both the motion fractional precision-level and its direction. Since the specification does not appear to provide any clear advantages for signaling the syntax in any particular order, Lee’s teachings are deemed relevant, with the ordering of this information considered to be within the level of skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, (Original) Chen, Goel, and Lee teach all the limitations of claim 11, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the one or more processors are configured to transmit the one among the set of sub-pixel positions according to binarization coding selected from one of fixed-length coding, truncated unary coding, truncated binary coding, and exponential-golomb coding.” [Please refer to for e.g. ¶0237. This can also be found in col. 14 lines 3-27 of Lee]
Regarding claim 20, (Previously Presented) Chen and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 18, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although the teachings of Chen and Goel are deemed relevant, they do not appear to address the features of claim 20. On the other hand, the work of Lee is brought in from the same or similar field of endeavor to teach and/or suggest “ “wherein the bitstream further comprises a first syntax element and a second syntax element [See for e.g. Lee’s claim 2, where signaled information (e.g. syntax elements) describes a refinement motion vector which includes refinement motion vector precision information (e.g. first syntax) and also refinement motion vector direction index information (e.g. second syntax)] trailing the first syntax element [Other than providing examples (e.g. ¶0190), the filed specification does not appear to provide any clear advantage for specifying the syntax order as claimed. Thus, although Lee does not explicitly address the order in which said information is signaled, Lee’s ‘information’ does teach both the motion fractional precision-level and the direction and is therefore deemed relevant, with the ordering of this information considered to be within the level of skill in the art]; and wherein the first syntax element comprises a precision of the one among the set of sub-pixel positions [Lee’s ‘information’ teaches the motion fractional precision-level (col. 37 lines 3-8)] and the second syntax element comprises a direction of the one among the set of sub-pixel positions [Lee’s ‘information’ teaches the corresponding direction (col. 41 lines 5-10)], or the first syntax element comprises the direction and the second syntax element comprises the precision.” [Given the ordering can go either way, Lee’s teachings are deemed relevant since they describe the two types of required signaled information (i.e. precision level and direction) related to fractional motion refinement] The motivation for combining Chen, Goel, and Lee has been discussed in connection with claim 11, above.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Claim 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 3-4 are 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
3. (Original) The computing system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to interpolate reconstructed values of the matching block at a half-pixel position by applying a 4-tap DCT-IF interpolation filter [-16 144 144 -16].
4. (Original) The computing system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to interpolate reconstructed values of the matching block at a quarter-pixel position by applying a 4-tap DCT-IF interpolation filter [-16 216 64 -8].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the work of Chen US 2024/0073437 A1 which describes motion vector pixel accuracies such as 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16 (e.g. ¶0238). ¶0380 also shows with the optimal integer-pixel MV point as center, an optimal fractional pixel offset of 1/16 pixel can be obtained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486