DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 07/07/2026.
In the filed response, independent claims 1, 18, and 21 have been amended, with claim 19 being previously canceled.
Accordingly, claims 1-18 and 20-22 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 18, and 21 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. This was briefly discussed with Applicant’s representative on 9/10/2026 (see attached interview summary). Please refer to examiner’s responses below.
2. Applicant’s reply was carefully considered in light of the filed amendments, i.e. “interpolating the matched template” and “template matching the interpolated matched template” as recited in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claims 18 and 21. Further considered were ¶0171 and ¶0172 of the filed specification regarding support for the amendments (see pg. 8 of remarks). Based on the examiner’s current understanding, template matching is first performed at integer pixel precision. Next, the matched template is interpolated at a sub-pixel resolution (e.g. half-pel, quarter pel, etc.) followed by template matching the interpolated matched template. Although Chen and Goel do not explicitly recite “interpolating the matched template” and “template matching the interpolated matched template” as required, both employ interpolation filters for determining sub-integer pixel values used in motion estimation. For example, Chen’s template refinement (¶0290) may be performed at a higher precision and in a small area, yielding quarter-pel, eight-pel, or sixteenth-pel resolution. As such, and given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the aforementioned limitation, the examiner believes Chen’s template refinement process is relevant, since refining a template to have a more resolved pixel resolution would require sub-pixel interpolation. The same also applies to Geol, where although a “template” is not explicitly referenced, Goel does describe sub-pixel interpolation via interpolation filters for application in motion compensation (e.g. ¶0053-¶0056). However, in the spirit of compact prosecution, new prior art Yan et al. US 2025/0294166 A1 (PTO 892) with reference to Provisional Application No. 63/429,971, hereinafter referred to as Yan, is brought in to more clearly address these newly added features. In particular, Yan teaches intra template matching prediction (TMP) where fractional-pel predicted templates may be obtained (e.g. abstract). For e.g., ¶0222 describes half-pel and/or quarter-pel templates and in some cases other fractional values may be employed. Yan further describes details related to fractional Intra TMP, where a template matching process is conducted to identify an optimal integer predicted template. Once identified, fractional templates surrounding the integer template are interpolated (i.e. “interpolating the matched template”), from which fractional-pel template matching can then be conducted (i.e. “template matching the interpolated matched template”). Please see for e.g. ¶0173. Corresponding support in the priority document can be found for e.g. on pgs. 31-32. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on in the office action below, the examiner respectfully submits the works of Chen, Goel, and Yan, either alone or in combination, teach and/or suggest under 35 U.S.C. 103 the disclosed features of amended claims 1, 18, and 21 given their BRI. Also noteworthy are the works of Esenlik et al. US 2020/0404323 A1 and Esenlik et al. US 11,405,632 B2 (PTO 892) which are also deemed relevant.
3. 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.
4. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-18 and 20-22 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 view of Yan et al. US 2025/0294166 A1 (with reference to Provisional Application No. 63/429,971) and in further view of Goel US 2008/0310509 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chen, Yan, and Goel, respectfully.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Chen 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]; interpolating the matched template; [Although Chen describes an interpolation process for template matching (e.g. 0307 and 0418-0420), Yan below is introduced for more explicit support] template matching the interpolated matched template against a set of sub-pixel positions around the integer-pixel position [Please refer to Yan below for corresponding 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. 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 can be executed accordingly] Although Chen performs template matching to find the best fractional motion, Chen’s approach does not reasonably address “interpolating the matched template”. Chen also does not address “template matching the interpolated matched template against a set of sub-pixel positions around the integer-pixel position”. On the other hand, Yan from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “interpolating the matched template [Fractional templates surrounding a previously identified optimal integer predicted template can be interpolated (¶0173). See pgs. 31-32 of the priority document for corresponding support]; template matching the interpolated matched template against a set of sub-pixel positions around the integer-pixel position” [Once interpolated, fractional-pel template matching can then be conducted, where the fractional templates of sub-pixel positions are understood to be around the integer pixel positions (¶0173). For e.g., ¶0222 describes half-pel and/or quarter-pel templates and in some cases other fractional values may be employed. See pgs. 31-32 of the priority document for corresponding support] Given the teachings of Yan 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’) to add the work of Yan as above to facilitate improving the coding efficiency of the intra template matching prediction mode (e.g. ¶0002). 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”. Although Yan above describes “quarter-pixel positions” (e.g. ¶0171 and ¶0212), Yan does not appear to address “wherein the set of sub-pixel positions comprises at least quarter-pixel positions in eight cardinal positions around the integer-pixel position”. On the other hand,
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 in eight cardinal directions. 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 intra template-matching prediction methods of Chen and Yan, by adding the sub-pixel interpolation methods of Goel as above 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, Yan, 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). Also please see Yan (e.g. ¶0099)]
Regarding claim 5, (Original) Chen, Yan, 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 or 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, Yan, 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 (Yan on the other hand does not appear to address the foregoing limitations), the work of Goel from the same or similar field of endeavor is also relied on to further teach and/or suggest these features. [Please refer to fig. 4 and ¶0051-¶0056 for support] The motivation for combining Chen, Yan, and Goel has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Chen, Yan, 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 (please note, Yan does not appear to address these features), 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, Yan, and Goel has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 8, (Original) Chen, Yan, 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, Yan, and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chen and Yan however do 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, Yan, and Goel has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 10, (Original) Chen, Yan, 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, Yan, 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, Yan, 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, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Chen teaches and/or suggests “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions when executed by a processor cause the processor to carry out the steps of a method [See for e.g. ¶0020-¶0021 and ¶0087 of Chen], wherein the method comprises: 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] against an interpolated matched template, [Although Chen describes template refinement (¶0290) along with an interpolation process for template matching (e.g. ¶0307 and ¶0418-¶0420) which is deemed relevant given the BRI of the limitation, Yan (below) is introduced for more explicit support] 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]. Although Chen performs template refinement, which can be understood as means for achieving a more resolved template, and template matching to find the best fractional motion (please see above), Yan from the same or similar field of endeavor is introduced to more ‘explicitly’ teach and/or suggest “against an interpolated matched template” [Fractional-pel template matching can be conducted after interpolating the optimal integer predicted template, where the fractional templates of sub-pixel positions are understood to be around the integer pixel positions (e.g. ¶0173). See pgs. 31-32 of the priority document for corresponding support. Yan also teaches various syntax elements (e.g. flags) for applying the disclosed intra TMP methods (e.g. ¶0164)] The motivation for combining Chen and Yan has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above. Regarding “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”. Although Chen’s teachings are deemed relevant, the refinement directions are confined to the horizontal and vertical directions (¶0296). Yan also does not appear to address this feature. 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, Yan, and Goel has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of Claim 18.
Claims 11-15, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Yan, in further 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, Yan, and Goel teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 10, 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 both Yan and Goel do 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 and Yan for intra template-matching prediction (‘Intra TMP’) 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, Yan, 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, Chen, Yan, and Goel 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, Yan, 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, Yan, 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, Yan, 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, Yan, 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, Yan, 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
6. 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights