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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/31/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
Nothing in this first method of Lai for determining the weights includes any respective position of pixels. For instance, the weight (e.g., wi) is based on the sum, SAD, and number of blocks used for fusing, and none of these values are based on a respective position of the pixels. In direct contrast, claim 1 recites "determining a respective first weight for two or more pixels of a first block of the plurality of blocks based on a respective position of the two or more pixels of the first block".
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 requires a first weight for two or more pixels of a first block. Claim 1 does not limit the how many pixels are represented by the first weight. Therefore, the limitation of “based on a respective position of the two or more pixels of the first block” includes the entire first block. The weight as claimed is interpreted to represent all block pixels.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lai (Non-EE2: Intra Template-Matching Prediction Fusion).
Regarding claim 1, Lai teaches a method of encoding or decoding video data, the method comprising:
determining, for a current block, a plurality of blocks for fusing (This contribution proposes a method that derives multiple IntraTMP matched blocks and then fuses them to produce a better overall predictor. [section 2]);
determining a respective first weight for two or more pixels of a first block of the plurality of blocks based on a respective position of the two or more pixels of the first block ([section 2] c) Calculate weights for each matched block used for fusion.);
determining a respective second weight for two or more pixels of a second block of the plurality of blocks ([section 2] c) Calculate weights for each matched block used for fusion.);
fusing the two or more pixels of the first block and the two or more pixels of the second block based on the respective first weight for the two or more pixels of the first block and the respective second weight for the two or more pixels of the second block to generate a prediction signal (p_fusion=w_1 p_TMP+w_2 p_intra where p_TMP is the single matched block and p_intra is the intra predictor derived by planar mode. In this special case, the weights are set as w_1=7/8 and w_2=1/8.); and
encoding or decoding the current block based on the prediction signal (This contribution proposes an Intra Template-Matching Prediction fusion method that blends multiple matched blocks derived from intra template matching process. The proposed method is implemented on top of ECM-7.0 software, it shows coding performance gains [abstract]).
Regarding claim 2, Lai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the respective second weight comprises determining the respective second weight for the two or more pixels of the second block of the plurality of blocks based on a respective position of the two or more pixels of the second block (In the first method, fusion weights are calculated by their SAD [section 2]. Examiner note: SAD is position dependent).
Regarding claim 3, Lai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the respective second weight comprises setting the respective second weight for all of the two or more pixels of the second block to be the same (c) Calculate weights for each matched block used for fusion.
Once blocks to be fused are decided, they are fused with weights [section 2].).
Regarding claim 4, Lai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a respective first weight for a first pixel of the first block and a respective first weight for a second pixel of the first block is different (In this special case, the weights are set as
w
1
=
7
/
8
and
w
2
=
1
/
8
[section 2]. Examiner note: this is a non limiting example of a different first and second weight).
Regarding claim 5, Lai teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the respective first weight for the two or more pixels of the first block comprises determining the respective first weight for the two or more pixels of the first block based on the respective position of the two or more pixels of the first block and a candidate value of the first block (In the first method, fusion weights are calculated by their SAD [section 2]. Examiner note: SAD is position dependent).
Regarding claim 9, Lai teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
signaling or parsing a flag indicating that position-dependent fusion is applied,
wherein fusing comprises fusing in a condition where the flag indicates that position-dependent fusion is applied (A CU level flag is added to signal whether an IntraTMP CU is predicted by the proposed fusion method or original method. [section 2]).
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.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai in view of XU (US 20250126291 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Lai teaches the method of claim 1. Lai does not explicitly suggest the following limitations, however, in an analogous art, XU teaches wherein encoding or decoding the current block based on the prediction signal comprises decoding the current block, wherein decoding the current block comprises:
determining, based on information signaled in a bitstream, residual values indicative of a difference between the current block and the prediction signal; and adding the residual values to the prediction signal to reconstruct the current block ([0042] The residual generation unit 1102 may generate a residual block for the CU by subtracting, from the original block for the CU, the prediction blocks for the PUs into which the CU is partitioned.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of XU and apply them to Lai. One would be motivated as such as improve coding efficiency (XU:[0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Lai teaches the method of claim 1. Lai does not explicitly suggest the following limitations, however, in an analogous art, XU teaches wherein encoding or decoding the current block based on the prediction signal comprises encoding the current block, wherein encoding the current block comprises:
determining residual values indicative of a difference between the current block and the prediction signal; and signaling, in a bitstream, information indicative of the residual values ([0042] The residual generation unit 1102 may generate a residual block for the CU by subtracting, from the original block for the CU, the prediction blocks for the PUs into which the CU is partitioned.).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of XU and apply them to Lai. One would be motivated as such as improve coding efficiency (XU:[0005]).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XU in view of Lai.
Regarding claim 15, Xu teaches a device for encoding or decoding video data, the device comprising:
one or more memories configured to store the video data (the apparatus includes a processor 71 and a memory 73 [0316]); and
processing circuitry coupled to the one or more memories ([0325] In some aspects, the functionality described herein may be provided within dedicated hardware and/or software modules configured for encoding and decoding, or incorporated into a combined codec. Also, the techniques may be fully implemented in one or more circuits or logic elements.), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
determine, for a current block, a plurality of blocks for fusing ([0314] In the case where the method for constructing a TMRL mode candidate list in the above embodiments is applied for video encoding and video decoding, if a fusion combination in the candidate list is selected for the current block, fusion prediction is performed on the current block according to a prediction manner of the fusion combination. );
XU does not explicitly suggest the following limitations, however, in an analogous art, Lai teaches determine a respective first weight for two or more pixels of a first block of the plurality of blocks based on a respective position of the two or more pixels of the first block ([section 2] c) Calculate weights for each matched block used for fusion.);
determine a respective second weight for two or more pixels of a second block of the plurality of blocks ([section 2] c) Calculate weights for each matched block used for fusion.);
fuse the two or more pixels of the first block and the two or more pixels of the second block based on the respective first weight for the two or more pixels of the first block and the respective second weight for the two or more pixels of the second block to generate a prediction signal (p_fusion=w_1 p_TMP+w_2 p_intra where p_TMP is the single matched block and p_intra is the intra predictor derived by planar mode. In this special case, the weights are set as w_1=7/8 and w_2=1/8.); and
encode or decode the current block based on the prediction signal (This contribution proposes an Intra Template-Matching Prediction fusion method that blends multiple matched blocks derived from intra template matching process. The proposed method is implemented on top of ECM-7.0 software, it shows coding performance gains [abstract]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of Lai and apply them to XU. One would be motivated as such thereby improving the accuracy of the prediction result obtained through fusion.
Regarding claim 16, Xu in view of Lai teaches the device of claim 15. Lai teaches wherein to determine the respective second weight, the processing circuitry is configured to determine the respective second weight for the two or more pixels of the second block of the plurality of blocks based on a respective position of the two or more pixels of the second block (In the first method, fusion weights are calculated by their SAD [section 2]. Examiner note: SAD is position dependent). The same motivation used to combine Xu in view of Lai in claim 15 is applicable.
Regarding claim 17, Xu in view of Lai teaches the device of claim 15. Lai teaches wherein to determine the respective second weight, the processing circuitry is configured to set the respective second weight for all of the two or more pixels of the second block to be the same (c) Calculate weights for each matched block used for fusion.
Once blocks to be fused are decided, they are fused with weights [section 2].).
Regarding claim 18, Xu in view of Lai teaches the device of claim 15. Lai teaches wherein a respective first weight for a first pixel of the first block and a respective first weight for a second pixel of the first block is different (In this special case, the weights are set as
w
1
=
7
/
8
and
w
2
=
1
/
8
[section 2]. Examiner note: this is a non limiting example of a different first and second weight). The same motivation used to combine Xu in view of Lai in claim 15 is applicable.
Regarding claim 19, Xu in view of Lai teaches the device of claim 15. Lai teaches wherein to determine the respective first weight for the two or more pixels of the first block, the processing circuitry is configured to determine the respective first weight for the two or more pixels of the first block based on the respective position of the two or more pixels of the first block and a candidate value of the first block (In the first method, fusion weights are calculated by their SAD [section 2]. Examiner note: SAD is position dependent). The same motivation used to combine Xu in view of Lai in claim 15 is applicable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 10-11, 14 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.
Based on the foregoing reasons, claims 20 filed 04/11/2024, are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The present invention is directed to a method of encoding or decoding video data based on a respective template matching costs.
The combination of the prior art does not teach or suggest a specific implementation with the following distinct properties that include:
filtering at least one of the current template or the respective reference templates to generate at least one of a filtered current template or respective filtered reference templates;
determining respective template matching costs for each of the plurality of blocks based on one of:
the filtered current template and the respective reference templates;
the current template and the respective filtered reference templates; or
the filtered current template and the respective filtered reference templates
Conclusion
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 HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 57127227384. 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.
/HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights