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 .
Applicant's arguments filed 09 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7 – 9, applicant argues that Poirier does not teach “wherein both the first and the second filter coefficients are determined based on a first function that is related to: a first distance from the second point to a closest integer position in a first direction along the second reference line and a second distance from the second point to a closest integer position in a second direction along the second reference line” as claimed because Poirier teaches determine filter coefficients based only one distance in one direction and not two different distances in two different directions as claimed. While applicant’s arguments are understood, examiner relies Poirier in maintaining the rejection.
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., a first distance in a first direction and second distance in a second direction wherein the second distance in the second direction are different from the first distance in the first direction) 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). When given the broadest reasonable interpretation as currently claimed, the first distance in a first direction and the second distance and a second direction are the same distance in the same direction. Poirier teaches at least at Fig. 5A and 6 and pars. 55 and 61 – 66. There Poirier teaches that the filter coefficients are determined based on a distance from the projected point on the second reference array and the closest integer sample positions on the second reference array. The rejection, therefore, is maintained.
On pages 9 – 10, applicant argues that Poirier does not teach that “the first filter coefficient is further determined based on a second function that is inversely related to a distance of the first point from the first reference sample” as claimed in claim 2 because Poirier does not teach any functions inversely related to a distance from the first point to a reference sample. Examiner notes Yoo and not Poirier was relied upon for the rejection of claim 2. Yoo teaches the limitations of claim 2 at least at Fig. 12 and pars. 139, 143 – 147 and 191. There, Yoo teaches that an interpolated value is further determined based on a second function, the second function being inversely proportional to the distance. The rejection, therefore, is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7 – 11, and 17 - 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Poirier et al. (EP 3554071) (hereinafter Poirier), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Poirier teaches a method comprising:
projecting, in an angular direction, a location of a sample to: a first point on a first reference line; and a second point on a second reference line (e.g. Fig. 5A and par. 48: depicting and describing that the system projects in an angular direction according to an angular prediction mode a predictor point on a first reference array and a second predictor point on a second reference array, wherein the first reference array and the second reference array is the equivalent of the first reference line and the second reference line);
interpolating between a first and second reference sample on the first reference line to determine an interpolated value at the first point (e.g. Fig. 5A and par. 48: describing that the system determines reference sample by interpolation between reference samples p1 and p2 on the first reference array to determine predictor sample value at the first predictor point),
wherein: the interpolating comprises applying:
a first filter coefficient to the first reference sample (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the system applies a first filter coefficient [h[0]] to the first reference sample [p1] on the first reference array); and
a second filter coefficient to the second reference sample (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the system applies a second filter coefficient [h[1]] to the second reference sample [p2] on the first reference array); and
both the first and the second filter coefficients are determined based on a first function that is related to: a first distance from the second point to a closest integer position in a first direction along the second reference line; and a second distance from the second point to a closest integer position in a second direction along the second reference line (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the filter coefficients are determine based a distance from the projected point on the second reference array and the closest integer sample positions on the second reference array on either side of the projected point [see, e.g. Fig. 8B and pars. 63 - 64: depicting and describing that the system calculates a distance value f2, the distance value being a distance from the projected predictor and the nearest integer sample position on the second reference array, the distance value f2 being used to determine a coefficient to be applied in the interpolation filter]); and
determining a prediction of the sample based on the interpolated value (e.g. Fig. 11, element 1140, and par. 81: depicting and describing that the system computes a predictor for the target sample using interpolation and predicts the target sample using the interpolated value).
Turning to claim 7, Poirier teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Poirier further teaches:
selecting the first and second filter coefficients from a lookup table based on: a fractional part of a displacement of the first point on the reference line relative to the location of the sample; and the angular direction (e.g. pars. 57 and 58: describing that the filter coefficients are selected from a lookup table based on fractional displacement of the first point on the reference line [f] and the angular mode).
Regarding claim 8, Poirier teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Poirier further teaches:
wherein: the first reference sample is at least one integer sample position removed from the first point in a first direction on the first reference line; and the second reference sample is at least one integer sample position removed from the first point in a second direction on the first reference line (e.g. Fig. 5A and par. 48: depicting and describing that the first reference sample [p1] is one integer sample position removed for the first predictor in a first direction of the first reference array, and the second reference sample [p2] is one integer sample position removed from the first predictor in a second direction on the first reference array, wherein the first predictor is the equivalent of the first point and the first reference array is the equivalent of the first reference line).
Turning to claim 9, Poirier teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Poirier further teaches:
wherein the angular direction is indicated by an angular mode (e.g. par. 48: describing that the angular direction is indicated by the angular mode).
Regarding claim 10, Poirier teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Poirier further teaches:
interpolating between a third and fourth reference sample on the first reference line to determine a second interpolated value at the first point (e.g. pars. 55 and 61 – 66: describing that reference samples p3 and p4 on the first reference array are interpolated to determine the interpolated value at the first predictor, wherein reference samples p3 and p4 are the equivalent of the third and fourth reference sample and wherein the first reference array is the equivalent of the first reference line),
wherein: the interpolating between third reference sample and the fourth reference sample comprises applying:
a third filter coefficient to the third reference sample (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the system applies a third filter coefficient [h[2]] to the third reference sample [p3] on the first reference array); and
a fourth filter coefficient to the fourth reference sample (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the system applies a fourth filter coefficient [h[3]] to the fourth reference sample [p4] on the first reference array); and
both the third filter coefficient and the fourth filter coefficient are determined based on a third function that is related to: the first distance; and the second distance (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the filter coefficients are determine based a distance from the projected point on the second reference array and the closest integer sample positions on the second reference array on either side of the projected point [see, e.g. Fig. 8B and pars. 63 - 64: depicting and describing that the system calculates a distance value f2, the distance value being a distance from the projected predictor and the nearest integer sample position on the second reference array, the distance value f2 being used to determine a coefficient to be applied in the interpolation filter]); and
determining the prediction of the sample is further based on the second interpolated value (e.g. Fig. 11, element 1140, and par. 81: depicting and describing that the system computes a predictor for the target sample using interpolation and predicts the target sample using the interpolated value, the predictor for the sample further determined based on the interpolated value of the third and fourth reference samples [see, e.g. pars. 61 – 66: describing that the value of the prediction sample is further determined based on the interpolation of the third reference sample [p3] and fourth reference sample [p4]])).
Turning to claim 11, Poirier teaches a method comprising:
projecting, in an angular direction, a location of a sample to: a first point on a first reference line; and a second point on a second reference line (e.g. Fig. 5A and par. 48: depicting and describing that the system projects in an angular direction according to an angular prediction mode a predictor point on a first reference array and a second predictor point on a second reference array, wherein the first reference array and the second reference array is the equivalent of the first reference line and the second reference line);
interpolating between first and second reference samples on the first reference line to determine an interpolated value at the first point (e.g. Fig. 5A and par. 48: describing that the system determines reference sample by interpolation between reference samples p1 and p2 on the first reference array to determine predictor sample value at the first predictor point),
wherein: the interpolating comprises applying:
a first filter coefficient to the first reference sample (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the system applies a first filter coefficient [h[0]] to the first reference sample [p1] on the first reference array); and
a second filter coefficient to the second reference sample (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the system applies a second filter coefficient [h[1]] to the second reference sample [p2] on the first reference array); and
both the first and second filter coefficient are determined based on a first function that is related to: a first distance from the second point to a closest integer position, in a first direction along the first reference line, of the first point; and a second distance from the second point to a closest integer position, in a second direction along the second reference line, of the first point (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the system generates a composite reference array, the composite reference array containing closest integer reference samples to the second predictor from the second reference array on the first reference array, the filter coefficients are determine based on a distance from the projected point on the first reference array and the closest integer sample positions on the second reference array on either side of the projected point on the composite reference array [see, e.g. Fig. 8B and pars. 63 - 64: depicting and describing that the system calculates a distance value f2, the distance value being a distance from the projected predictor and the nearest integer sample position on the second reference array, the distance value f2 being used to determine a coefficient to be applied in the interpolation filter]); and
determining a prediction of the sample based on the interpolated value (e.g. Fig. 11, element 1140, and par. 81: depicting and describing that the system computes a predictor for the target sample using interpolation and predicts the target sample using the interpolated value).
Regarding claim 17, Poirier teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Poirier further teaches:
selecting the first and second filter coefficients from a lookup table based on: a fractional part of a displacement of the first point on the reference line relative to the location of the sample; and the angular direction (e.g. pars. 57 and 58: describing that the filter coefficients are selected from a lookup table based on fractional displacement of the first point on the reference line [f] and the angular mode).
Turning to claim 18, Poirier teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Poirier further teaches:
wherein: the first reference sample is at least one integer sample position removed from the first point in a first direction on the first reference line; and the second reference sample is at least one integer sample position removed from the first point in a second direction on the first reference line (e.g. Fig. 5A and par. 48: depicting and describing that the first reference sample [p1] is one integer sample position removed from the first predictor in a first direction of the first reference array, and the second reference sample [p2] is one integer sample position removed from the first predictor in a second direction on the first reference array, wherein the first predictor is the equivalent of the first point and the first reference array is the equivalent of the first reference line).
Regarding claim 19, Poirier teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Poirier further teaches:
wherein the angular direction is indicated by an angular mode (e.g. par. 48: describing that the angular direction is indicated by the angular mode).
Turning to claim 20, Poirier teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Poirier further teaches:
interpolating between a third and fourth reference sample on the first reference line to determine a second interpolated value at the first point (e.g. pars. 55 and 61 – 66: describing that reference samples p3 and p4 on the first reference array are interpolated to determine the interpolated value at the first predictor, wherein reference samples p3 and p4 are the equivalent of the third and fourth reference sample and wherein the first reference array is the equivalent of the first reference line),
wherein: the interpolating between third reference sample and the fourth reference sample comprises applying:
a third filter coefficient to the third reference sample (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the system applies a third filter coefficient [h[2]] to the third reference sample [p3] on the first reference array); and
a fourth filter coefficient to the fourth reference sample (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the system applies a fourth filter coefficient [h[3]] to the fourth reference sample [p4] on the first reference array); and
both the third filter coefficient and the fourth filter coefficient are determined based on a third function that is related to: the first distance; and the second distance (Fig. 5A and 6, and pars. 55 and 61 – 66: depicting and describing that the filter coefficients are determine based a distance from the projected point on the second reference array and the closest integer sample positions on the second reference array on either side of the projected point [see, e.g. Fig. 8B and pars. 63 - 64: depicting and describing that the system calculates a distance value f2, the distance value being a distance from the projected predictor and the nearest integer sample position on the second reference array, the distance value f2 being used to determine a coefficient to be applied in the interpolation filter]); and
determining the prediction of the sample is further based on the second interpolated value (e.g. Fig. 11, element 1140, and par. 81: depicting and describing that the system computes a predictor for the target sample using interpolation and predicts the target sample using the interpolated value, the predictor for the sample further determined based on the interpolated value of the third and fourth reference samples [see, e.g. pars. 61 – 66: describing that the value of the prediction sample is further determined based on the interpolation of the third reference sample [p3] and fourth reference sample [p4]])).
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.
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) 2 – 3 and 12 - 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poirier et al. (EP 3554071) (hereinafter Poirier), as cited by applicant as applied to claims 1 and 11, respectively, above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2020/0036970) (hereinafter Yoo).
Regarding claim 2, Poirier teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Poirier does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first filter coefficient is further determined based on a second function that is inversely related to a distance of the first point from the first reference sample.
Yoo, however, teaches a method:
wherein the first filter coefficient is further determined based on a second function that is inversely related to a distance of the first point from the first reference sample (e.g. Fig. 12 and pars. 139, 143 – 147, and 191: depicting and describing that the interpolated value is further determined based on a second interpolation, the second interpolation being inversely proportional to the distance).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Poirier by adding the teachings of Yoo in order for the first filter coefficient is further determined based on a second function that is inversely related to a distance of the first point from the first reference sample. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves image coding efficiency (Yoo, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to improve coding efficiency).
Turning to claim 3, Poirier and Yoo teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, as discussed above. Poirier does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first filter coefficient is determined based on a product of the first function and the second function.
Yoo, however, teaches a method:
wherein the first filter coefficient is determined based on a product of the first function and the second function (e.g. Fig. 12 and pars. 139, 143 – 147, and 191: depicting and describing that the interpolated value is determined based on a product of the first interpolation function [gaussian interpolation] and the second interpolation function [cubic interpolation]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Poirier by adding the teachings of Yoo in order for the first filter coefficient is determined based on a product of the first function and the second function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves image coding efficiency (Yoo, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to improve coding efficiency).
Regarding claim 12, Poirier teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Poirier does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first filter coefficient is further determined based on a second function that is inversely related to a distance of the first point from the first reference sample.
Yoo, however, teaches a method:
wherein the first filter coefficient is further determined based on a second function that is inversely related to a distance of the first point from the first reference sample (e.g. Fig. 12 and pars. 139, 143 – 147, and 191: depicting and describing that the interpolated value is further determined based on a second interpolation, the second interpolation being inversely proportional to the distance).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Poirier by adding the teachings of Yoo in order for the first filter coefficient is further determined based on a second function that is inversely related to a distance of the first point from the first reference sample. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves image coding efficiency (Yoo, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to improve coding efficiency).
Turning to claim 13, Poirier and Yoo teach all of the limitations of claims 11 and 12, as discussed above. Poirier does not explicitly teach:
wherein the first filter coefficient is determined based on a product of the first function and the second function.
Yoo, however, teaches a method:
wherein the first filter coefficient is determined based on a product of the first function and the second function (e.g. Fig. 12 and pars. 139, 143 – 147, and 191: depicting and describing that the interpolated value is determined based on a product of the first interpolation function [gaussian interpolation] and the second interpolation function [cubic interpolation]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Poirier by adding the teachings of Yoo in order for the first filter coefficient is determined based on a product of the first function and the second function. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves image coding efficiency (Yoo, e.g. par. 5: describing a desire to improve coding efficiency).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 6 and 14 – 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10,764,576
US 10,944,963
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
/Dave Czekaj/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights