DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to claims 4 and 7–9, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn. Remarks, 5.
In view of the amendments to claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn. Remarks, 5.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant contends that Lee and Blasi are deficient for failing to teach or suggest geometric partitioning mode (GPM). Examiner disagrees. Both references teach GPM as explained in the rejection, infra.
On pages 6–7 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the combination of Lee and Blasi is deficient for failing to teach or suggest applying weights to a multi-hypothesis prediction using weight tables. Examiner disagrees. As explained in the rejection, infra, weighted combination prediction is synonymous in this art with multi-hypothesis prediction and Lee, especially in combination with Blasi, teaches weighted combination prediction using weight tables. See rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, infra. Specifically, Blasi’s paragraphs [0040]–[0042] teaches look-up tables for signaling different weights based on certain characteristics present during combined (multi-hypothesis) prediction, wherein the tables themselves can be transmitted and indexes into the tables are transmitted. Blasi’s paragraph [0018] teaches the triangular (geometric) partitions can be predicted using combined inter-intra prediction using weighting. One skilled in the art would find it obvious to combine Blasi’s multi-hypothesis prediction on geometric partitions using signaled weights as described in paragraph [0018] with Blasi’s teaching of weight look-up tables as described in paragraphs [0040]–[0042]. Accordingly, Examiner is unpersuaded of patentability.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 7.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blasi (US 2022/0103833 A1) and Lee (US 2022/0312003 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests a method of video processing, comprising: determining, during a conversion between a target block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a target weight table from a plurality of weight tables for multi-hypothesis prediction (Lee, ¶ 0559: teaches weighted combination prediction, which is synonymous in this art with multi-hypothesis prediction; Lee, ¶¶ 0560–0569: explains the weights used can differ based on the type of intra prediction being utilized in the multi-hypothesis prediction, along with many other factors including size of blocks; Lee, ¶ 0569: teaches weight table configurations can differ based on scenarios; While Lee teaches different weight tables based on factors present during multi-hypothesis prediction, Blasi, ¶¶ 0040–0042: teaches look-up tables for signaling different weights based on certain characteristics present during combined (multi-hypothesis) prediction, wherein the tables themselves can be transmitted and indexes into the tables are transmitted), the target weight table being used for a first hypothesis of the target block (both Lee and Blasi teach the weight tables are used for multi-hypothesis prediction; see supra), the target block being a multiple hypothesis prediction block, and the target block is coded with a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) (both Lee and Blasi teach the weight tables are used for multi-hypothesis prediction; see supra; Lee, ¶¶ 0069, 0218, and 0230: teaches geometric partitioning mode and the weighting of each prediction sample; Blasi likewise teaches geometric partitioning in teaching triangular partitions (see e.g. Blasi, Abstract); Blasi, ¶ 0018: teaches the triangular partitions can be predicted using combined inter-intra prediction using weighting); and performing the conversion based on the target weight table (both Lee and Blasi teach the weight tables are used for multi-hypothesis prediction; see supra).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Blasi, with those of Lee, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice combined (multi-hypothesis) prediction would be led to their relevant teachings and because Lee suggests using tables for weights and Blasi merely explains the benefits of predefined weights to simply weighted combinations of the multi-hypothesis coding technique. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Blasi and Lee used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the target weight table used for the first hypothesis of the target block is indicated in the bitstream (Blasi, ¶¶ 0040–0042: teaches look-up tables for signaling different weights based on certain characteristics present during combined (multi-hypothesis) prediction, wherein the tables themselves can be transmitted and indexes into the tables are transmitted; see also Blasi, ¶ 0018).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein determining the target weight table comprises: determining the target weight table based on one or more rules (Applicant’s published paragraph [0228] explains the weight rule can be what the base prediction mode is; Lee, ¶ 0568: teaches weight can be based on the intra-prediction mode used in the multi-hypothesis prediction).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 3, wherein the target weight table is determined based on one or more of: a width of a coded block associated with the target block, or a height of a coded block associated with the target block (Lee, ¶ 0561: teaches weights can be based off the number of reference blocks and the size/shape of the current block; Lee, ¶¶ 0586 and 0587: teaches the size of a previously coded block can inform prediction information).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 3, wherein the target weight table is determined based on one or more of: a width of the target block, or a height of the target block (Lee, ¶ 0561: teaches weights can be based off the number of reference blocks and the size/shape of the current block).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein if a multiple hypothesis prediction is applied to the target block, at least one message corresponding to multiple hypothesis information is indicated associated with the target block, wherein the multiple hypothesis information comprises coding information of the target block (There are too many instances of this teaching; For example, Lee, ¶ 0584: teaches coding prediction information for multi-hypothesis prediction).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 6, wherein the coding information comprises whether a second hypothesis is coded with an inter prediction method or an intra prediction method (Examiner interprets the claim to be drawn to a first prediction and the additional prediction method makes a second prediction method combined with the first prediction method to yield a combined inter-intra prediction mode; Both Lee and Blasi teach combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP); Lee, ¶ 0218: teaches CIIP; Blasi, Abstract: teaches CIIP; Blasi, ¶ 0018: teaches combined inter-intra prediction for geometric (triangular) partitions using weighting).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 7, wherein if the second hypothesis is coded with the intra prediction method, whether the second hypothesis is coded with a first prediction method is indicated (Examiner notes that according to original claim 11, this mode is MRL; But note also that original claims 13 and 15 explain the mode can be a regular mode or LM mode; Lee, ¶ 0024: teaches a “special” intra-prediction mode can be MIP, MRL, ISP, LM, or CPR; Lee, ¶ 0429: explains the intra-prediction mode can be special modes or regular modes; Lee, ¶ 0024: teaches a “special” intra-prediction mode can be MIP, MRL, ISP, LM, or CPR; Lee, ¶¶ 0296–0298: teaching that “unavailable” modes are the special intra-prediction modes and that when a neighboring block is coded using a special intra mode, a predetermined base mode, such as planar, DC, or angular mode may be substituted; Examiner notes that non-angular modes, such as planar mode and DC mode have been taught in the prior art to be disabled for MRL and Examiner finds that perhaps these claims are a veiled attempt to reach this subject matter; see additional prior art under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; see also Blasi, ¶ 0018).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 7, wherein a first prediction method is mandatorily used for an intra coded second hypothesis, whether the second hypothesis is coded with the first prediction method is not indicated (Lee, ¶ 0024: teaches a “special” intra-prediction mode can be MIP, MRL, ISP, LM, or CPR; Lee, e.g. ¶ 0300: teaches that when a neighboring mode is a special mode, such as MIP, the mandatory mode can be set as planar mode; Examiner notes Lee is not limited to MIP mode being converted to a regular mode; Other teachings in Lee support converting the special modes into regular intra-modes; For example, Lee, claim 8, teaches converting special mode IBC (CPR) mode into regular DC mode; see Lee, ¶¶ 0296–0298: teaching that “unavailable” modes are the special intra-prediction modes and that when a neighboring block is coded using a special intra mode, a predetermined base mode, such as planar, DC, or angular mode may be substituted; see also Blasi, ¶ 0018).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein a pre-defined intra prediction method is mandatorily used (Lee, ¶ 0024: teaches a “special” intra-prediction mode can be MIP, MRL, ISP, LM, or CPR; Lee, ¶¶ 0296–0298: teaching that “unavailable” modes are the special intra-prediction modes and that when a neighboring block is coded using a special intra mode, a predetermined base mode, such as planar, DC, or angular mode may be substituted).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 8, wherein the first prediction method is a MRL method (Lee, ¶ 0024: teaches a “special” intra-prediction mode can be MIP, MRL, ISP, LM, or CPR; Lee, ¶¶ 0296–0298: teaching that “unavailable” modes are the special intra-prediction modes and that when a neighboring block is coded using a special intra mode, a predetermined base mode, such as planar, DC, or angular mode may be substituted).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 11, wherein a default MRL index is used, and additional MIP information is not indicated (Lee, ¶ 0024: teaches a “special” intra-prediction mode can be MIP, MRL, ISP, LM, or CPR; Lee, ¶¶ 0296–0298: teaching that “unavailable” modes are the special intra-prediction modes and that when a neighboring block is coded using a special intra mode, a predetermined base mode, such as planar, DC, or angular mode may be substituted).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 8, wherein the first prediction method is a regular intra prediction method (Lee, ¶ 0024: teaches a “special” intra-prediction mode can be MIP, MRL, ISP, LM, or CPR; Lee, ¶¶ 0296–0298: teaching that “unavailable” modes are the special intra-prediction modes and that when a neighboring block is coded using a special intra mode, a predetermined base mode, such as planar, DC, or angular mode may be substituted).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 13, wherein an intra prediction mode index is indicated (Lee, ¶ 0024: teaches a “special” intra-prediction mode can be MIP, MRL, ISP, LM, or CPR; Lee, ¶¶ 0296–0298: teaching that “unavailable” modes are the special intra-prediction modes and that when a neighboring block is coded using a special intra mode, a predetermined base mode, such as planar, DC, or angular mode may be substituted).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 8, wherein the first prediction method is an intra LM prediction method (Lee, ¶ 0024: teaches a “special” intra-prediction mode can be MIP, MRL, ISP, LM, or CPR; Lee, ¶¶ 0296–0298: teaching that “unavailable” modes are the special intra-prediction modes and that when a neighboring block is coded using a special intra mode, a predetermined base mode, such as planar, DC, or angular mode may be substituted).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 15, wherein a default LM method is used, and additional LM information is indicated (Lee, ¶ 0024: teaches a “special” intra-prediction mode can be MIP, MRL, ISP, LM, or CPR; Lee, ¶¶ 0296–0298: teaching that “unavailable” modes are the special intra-prediction modes and that when a neighboring block is coded using a special intra mode, a predetermined base mode, such as planar, DC, or angular mode may be substituted).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the target block into the bitstream (Lee, Title: teaches encoding/decoding).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the target block from the bitstream (Lee, Title: teaches encoding/decoding).
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to a method of storing a bitstream rather than a method of video processing. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Blasi and Lee teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Lee, ¶ 0001: teaches this art encompasses storing bitstreams).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang et al., “Multiple Reference Line Coding for Most Probable Modes in Intra Prediction,” 2019 Data Compression Conference (DCC), 2019.
Galpin (US 2022/0385922 A1) teaches multi-hypothesis coding in terms of CIIP and using weight sets (e.g. ¶ 0052).
Li (US 2022/0174270 A1) teaches, “The CIIP mode may be called a multi-hypothesis mode….” (¶ 0129).
Bossen (US 2022/0086460 A1) teaches when MHP is applied, an intra MPM list only includes PLANAR, DC, vertical, and horizontal modes and only one of those may be used as the intra-prediction mode (¶ 0070).
Zhao (US 2021/0084309 A1) teaches CIIP is synonymous with multi-hypothesis and teaches weight sets for CIIP (e.g. ¶¶ 0131–0132).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL J. HESS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/MICHAEL J HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481