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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks entered on 09/11/2025.
Claims 1-2 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 1-2 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 09/11/2025, pages 4-5, regarding the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 2 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) have been fully considered, and are moot upon further consideration and a new ground(s) of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2019/147628 A1) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Xu et al. (US 2011/0002389 A1) (hereinafter Xu) as outlined below.
In response to Applicant’s remark that Examiner’s previously-cited references do not show the Applicant’s newly-recited claim limitations, the Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the rejection of claims 1-2 below, wherein Applicant’s newly-recited limitations are addressed by Xu for the reasons as outlined below.
Furthermore, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the degree of similarity is calculated on a block size basis, while the correction processing is performed by a partial block size basis (which is smaller than the block size)”) 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2019/147628 A1) (hereinafter Zhang) in view of Xu et al. (US 2011/0002389 A1) (hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an image decoding device for decoding a block-based target image from encoded data [Paragraphs [0024], [0032], [0079], Figs. 2, 6 & 11, block-based video decoder], the image decoding device comprising:
a predictor circuitry configured to generate a block of prediction image corresponding to a block of the target image by performing bi-directional prediction using a plurality of reference images [Paragraphs [0024]-[0034], Fig. 2 & 6, motion compensated prediction with GBi generalized bi-prediction module 662, as predictor circuitry, performing bi-directional motion compensated prediction using reference pictures shown in Fig. 3];
an evaluator circuitry configured to calculate an evaluation value indicating a degree of similarity between the plurality of reference images [Paragraphs [0024]-[0034] & [0097]-[0100], Fig. 2 & 6, GBi generalized bi-prediction module 662 as evaluator circuitry, wherein similarity level is determined between the first reference block and the second reference block];
an acquisition circuitry configured to decode the encoded data to acquire prediction residuals [Paragraphs [0024]-[0042], Fig. 2 & 6, Entropy decoding unit 208 & 608 as acquisition circuitry that receives and decodes video bitstream 202 comprising residual transform coefficients as prediction residuals];
a combiner circuitry configured to combine the acquired prediction residuals with the block of the prediction image to reconstruct the block of the target image [Paragraphs [0024]-[0042], Fig. 2 & 6, Prediction block and residual block are added together at 226 or 626, as combiner circuitry, before being filtered and sent out for display]; and
a controller configured to, based on the evaluation value, correct a combining target of the combiner circuitry in a unit of a partial block that are smaller than the block and consisting of multiple pixels [Paragraphs [0024]-[0034], [0060]-[0064], [0097]-[0106] & [0118], Fig. 2 & 6, computer processing performed by a controller, wherein a number of available bi-prediction weights is determined based at least in part on the similarity level between reference blocks, utilized in correcting motion vector searches at fractional pels for partitions of a quad-tree and binary tree, as partial blocks smaller than block].
However, Zhang does not explicitly disclose performing bi-directional prediction using a plurality of reference images each has the same size as the block.
Xu teaches of performing bi-directional prediction using a plurality of reference images each has the same size as the block [Paragraphs [0002]-[0003], Fig. 1, bi-prediction with reference blocks 150 and 180, as plurality of reference images having the same size as the current block 140 shown in Fig. 1].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Zhang to incorporate and implement the bi-directional prediction process in Xu as above, to improve video compression performance by removing or reducing temporal redundancy among video frames and reduce MV redundancy by encoding only the difference between the searched MV and predicted MV (Xu, Paragraphs [0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 2, method claim 2 corresponds to device claim 1, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
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 DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
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.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights