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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner agrees the double patenting rejection can be addressed upon settling the claim language. Remarks, 8–9.
On page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant states, “Applicant thanks the Examiner for the lesson in video compression….” Applicant is reminded of MPEP 714.25 and 35 C.F.R. 1.3. Characterizing Examiner’s attempt to articulate the rationale underlying his rejection as a “lesson in video compression” demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the Patent Office and its responsibility to its various stakeholders. See e.g. MPEP 2141(II) (“Office personnel fulfill the critical role of factfinder…”).
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant unreasonably conflates Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with improperly insisting on a preference of expression. The issue is whether the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter would have been reasonably certain to the skilled artisan. Examiner found the claims did not meet that threshold.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant states, “Applicant submits that is not the only way.” That is not the issue. The issue is that under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover the way Examiner described. The issue is claim clarity and claim scope. Should Applicant desire an interpretation consistent with Applicant’s paragraph [0029] as Applicant asserts in the Remarks, or any other portion of Applicant’s Specification for that matter, then language commensurate with that narrower interpretation is required. Claims must be commensurate in scope with that described in the Specification. Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999, 85 USPQ2d 1826, ____ (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement to ensure that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims.”) (quotation omitted). MPEP 2161.01(III). “[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective.” LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733. See MPEP 2161.01.
On pages 10–11 of the Remarks, Applicant contends “Examiner clearly disagrees with how the subset of pixel predictors is determined (e.g. the size), as shown by his remarks on page 5 of the Office Action, because the Examiner insists that the subset of pixel predictors are the pixel predictors that perform the best.” Applicant’s confusion is unreasonable. If Examiner cannot make a reasonable interpretation of the claim, i.e. one that makes sense to one of ordinary skill in the art, then the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). What Applicant should have seen in the explanation provided by Examiner was an attempt to show why the claim was unclear. Examiner attempted to explain a fundamental inconsistency between what the claim required and what the Specification appeared to describe. Applicant’s Remarks reflect no interest in resolving that issue. “Communication overhead” is a broad term that, in the previous version of the claim, was assigned to the feature of “determining a communication overhead for each block…comprising a number of bits per block to express a number of pixel predictors in a set of pixel predictors assigned to each block.” Is it really the case that more than one predictor is assigned to each block? Or is it more accurate to say one predictor is assigned to each block from a set of predictor candidates? In any event, this issue is essentially moot because Applicant, essentially, amended away from the problematic language. Examiner finds it most prudent at this point in prosecution to resolve Applicant’s issues of clarity and scope through a broadest reasonable interpretation under a prior art rejection.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the prior art is deficient for failing to teach or suggest the amended features of claim 1. Examiner finds the arguments moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Specifically, the rejection now relies on the additional teachings of Maeda to teach or suggest the features of representative amended claim 1.
On page 12 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the teachings of Galpin regarding rate distortion cost are not sufficient to teach or suggest the features of claim 6. Examiner disagrees. Applicant seems to only be familiar with rate-distortion cost as a compression performance. The skilled artisan recognizes more. Because Applicant has indicated in this record that Applicant does not wish to receive lessons in video compression, Examiner is reluctant to endeavor to contribute to Applicant’s understanding. However, in the interest of developing a complete record, Examiner proceeds cautiously despite the possibility of offending Applicant with a further lesson in video compression. Examiner finds the skilled artisan understands RDO to teach or suggest the claimed features. First, it must be recognized that Applicant’s argument completely overlooks the teachings of Chen. As the rejection for claim 6 explains, Chen teaches DC intra prediction, which is a prediction mode that averages the pixels of a target block and pixels of a predictor block and finds the predictor block having the smallest DC difference. Given an intra DC prediction, which finds the best match in terms of DC similarity between the block to code and the reference block, the teachings of Galpin become more understood. Applicant’s claim lacks clarity, but the broadest reasonable interpretation one skilled in the art can provide given the claim language leads the skilled artisan to recognize the averaging of pixels in a block to be a reference to DC intra prediction. As an alternative, Vandame (US 2010/0290531 A1), paragraphs [0026] and [0064], explains that in addition to sum of absolute differences (SAD), the most popular similarity metric used for matching coded blocks to prediction blocks, other similarity metrics, such as MAD, are known to the skilled artisan. MAD is the mean of the absolute differences between the values of pixels of the reference block and the values of the corresponding pixels of the block to be coded. It is assumed Applicant does not need a prior art reference explaining that a difference between a prediction block and a target block is called a residual is this art. As explained in Vafin’s (US 2012/0328002 A1) paragraphs [0062] and [0063], in RDO, the distortion is measured as the sum of absolute differences (SAD), or other similarity metric, between a prediction block and a target block. As explained in Vafin’s paragraphs [0062] and [0063], the cost can include the residual and side information or just the side information. In other words, Applicant’s claim 6, as interpreted by one skilled in the art, is simply the process of finding the best prediction block using a prior art method (i.e. intra DC prediction or MAD) to determine the similarity between the target block and the prediction block based on the rate-distortion cost, wherein the distortion is the similarity metric and the cost is the bit cost or bitrate. The skilled artisan does not need the teachings of Vandame, nor the teachings of Vafin, to teach such a basic feature in this art and a discussion in the prior art merely teaching RDO, as Galpin does in Galpin’s paragraph [0051], is sufficient. Therefore, despite Applicant’s insistence that more evidence be provided, Examiner finds the Office has sufficiently articulated a prima facie case of obviousness and has supported such a finding with substantial evidence. Accordingly, the rejections are sustained.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 13–15.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,296 B2 in view of Galpin (US 2021/0120247 A1) and Kirchhoffer (US 10,855,999 B2). The instant claims represent substantial overlap with the reference patent’s claims. For example, both claim sets’ independent claims have at their core a machine learning model for contexts used in the entropy coding. Furthermore, claim 2 of the instant application uses a number of pixels to define a block size while claim 4 of the reference patent uses block size. The skilled artisan knows number of pixels and block size can be used interchangeably in most scenarios in this art and certainly conveys the same concept to one of ordinary skill. Other features between the claims are viewed as generic or extra-solution activity well-represented in the prior art and not a patentably distinguishing feature that would render the instant claims nonobvious over the reference patent. Further explanation regarding those generic, prior art features can be found in the rejection of those features in view of the prior art, infra.
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 1–3, 8–10, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin (US 2021/0120247 A1), Kirchhoffer (US 10,855,999 B2), Guo (US 2012/0177112 A1), and Maeda (US 2013/j0114724 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, and Maeda teaches or suggests a method comprising: dividing an input image into a set of blocks, wherein the set of blocks includes a first block including a first group of pixels and a second block including a second group of pixels (Galpin, Fig. 7: illustrates the state-of-the-art video coding technique of dividing an image into blocks; see also Galpin, ¶ 0003: providing a general overview of video compression techniques); determining a size of a set of pixel predictors using a communication overhead (This limitation is interpreted consistent with Applicant’s published paragraphs [0030]–[0034] wherein it is explained one block predictor is used for every pixel in the block and for each of the color components of the block; Guo, Abstract: teaches intra prediction mode is applied on a block basis; Guo, Fig. 2: teaches the predictors can be chosen from a causal neighborhood comprising the top and left blocks; Guo, ¶ 0021: teaches the intra chroma predictor can be signaled to be the same as the intra luma predictor; Examiner notes Lim, used to reject claim 7 also teaches or suggests these features; Galpin, ¶ 0051: teaches picking a best prediction based on rate distortion cost, i.e. compression performance (communication overhead), but does not state as clearly as Maeda; Maeda, ¶ 0246: teaches reducing the number of prediction candidates reduces the size of the overhead for signaling the chosen predictor) selecting, for each block of the set of blocks, pixel predictors from the set of pixel predictors, wherein the pixel predictor is selected base on a residual value associated with each block; determining a plurality of residual values using the selected pixel predictor corresponding to each block of the set of blocks (Examiner finds all of the aforementioned features are generic prior art video coding techniques; Kirchhoffer, Fig. 4, Element 106: teaches a predictor; Kirchhoffer, col. 1, ll. 64–67: teaches prediction generates residuals, which is the difference between the original block and the predicted block; Galpin, ¶ 0003: providing a general overview of video compression techniques; Galpin, ¶ 0052 and Fig. 1, Element 110: teaches residuals fed to a transform, quantization, and entropy coding, said residuals the result of subtracting a prediction from the original signal); generating, by a machine learning model, a set of contexts using the plurality of residual values (Galpin, ¶ 0171: teaches a neural network for entropy coding; Examiner notes Applicant’s ¶¶ 0004 and 0019 appear to define “features” as “properties” and “properties” as “statistics” for the residuals; Examiner chooses Applicant’s ¶ 0004, which explains properties are used for context modeling, to be the interpretation given to this claim; Galpin, ¶ 0076: teaches context modeling; see also Galpin, ¶ 0168; Alternatively, Examiner notes that adaptive coefficient scanning is a prior art technique that appears to read on this limitation); and entropy encoding the set of contexts (Galpin, ¶ 0173: teaches machine learning can be used to context model; Galpin, Fig. 1, Element 145: teaches an entropy coder; Galpin does not appear to explain that the residuals are clustered; Kirchhoffer, col. 28, ll. 47–53: teaches adaptive scanning, which groups residual coefficients to better cluster significant values for more efficient entropy coding; see also Kirchhoffer, col. 23, ll. 16–35: describing sub-regions for context modeling similar residual values for entropy coding).
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 Galpin, with those of Kirchhoffer, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice image or video compression would be led to their relevant teachings and because Kirchhoffer merely explains a well-known prior art technique of clustering like residuals together prior to entropy coding using adaptive scan patterns. Thus the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, yielding a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Galpin and Kirchhoffer used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
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 Galpin and Kirchhoffer, with those of Guo, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice image or video compression would be led to their relevant teachings and because Guo merely explains a well-known prior art technique of intra prediction of pixels according to blocks and using the same predictor for each of the color channels. Thus the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, yielding a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, and Guo used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
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 Galpin, Kirchhoffer, and Guo, with those of Maeda, because all four references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice image or video compression would be led to their relevant teachings and because Maeda merely explains a well-known prior art technique of reducing the set of predictors to reduce signaling overhead. Thus the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, yielding a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, and Maeda used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, and Maeda teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein a number of pixels in the first group of pixels is different from a number of pixels in the second group of pixels (Galpin, ¶ 0050: teaches the blocks can have different sizes; Kirchhoffer, col. 1, ll. 33–34: also teaches blocks can have different sizes).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, and Maeda teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein each pixel in the first group of pixels is different from each pixel in the second group of pixels (Different how?; Galpin, ¶ 0050: teaches the blocks can have different sizes; Galpin, Fig. 7: teaches the blocks are non-overlapping and are in different locations within the image; Examiner notes the plain meaning of this claim is that every pixel in a block must differ from every pixel in another block; One cannot force such a constraint on random input data; If the data is manipulated, then such is obvious as anyone can make any pixel any value they want).
Claim 8 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 9 lists the same elements as claim 2, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 3, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 15 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 16 lists the same elements as claim 2, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 2 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists the same elements as claim 3, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 3 applies to the instant claim.
Claims 4–6, 11–13, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, Maeda, and Chen (US 2018/0131962 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, Maeda, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein each pixel predictor of the set of pixel predictors determines predicted pixel values using adjacent pixels (Chen, ¶ 0013: teaches intra prediction can use immediately adjacent pixels as pixel predictors).
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 Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, and Maeda, with those of Chen, because all five references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice image or video compression would be led to their relevant teachings and because Chen merely explains as a dictionary-type reference how the skilled artisan would interpret Galpin’s, Kirchhoffer’s, and Guo’s teaching of intra prediction modes. Thus the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, yielding a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, Maeda, and Chen used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, Maeda, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 4, wherein each block of the set of blocks includes one or more pixels with one or more corresponding pixel values, and wherein selecting, for each block of the set of blocks, pixel predictors from the set of pixel predictors, further comprises: determining, using a pixel predictor from the set of pixel predictors, the residual value associated with a block by comparing a predicted pixel value for a pixel associated with the block to the pixel value for the pixel associated with the block (Examiner notes this is nothing more than definitional, i.e. the definition of a residual is the difference between the prediction and the actual value of the pixel; Galpin, ¶¶ 0003 and 0050: teaches residuals are the difference between the predicted and original image content).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, Maeda, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 5, wherein selecting, for each block of the set of blocks, pixel predictors from the set of pixel predictors, further comprises: determining, for each block of the set of blocks, an average residual value by averaging the residual value associated with each pixel of the block (Examiner finds the skilled artisan would interpret the average residual value of a block as DC intra prediction according to Cote cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; Chen, ¶¶ 0013 and 0049: teaches DC intra prediction mode in which the prediction is an average of the pixels of the predictor block; Alternatively, Examiner finds other distortion metrics known in the art include MAD, SAD, SSD, MSE, SATD, etc.; As an alternative, Vandame (US 2010/0290531 A1), paragraphs [0026] and [0064], explains that in addition to sum of absolute differences (SAD), the most popular similarity metric used for matching coded blocks to prediction blocks, other similarity metrics, such as MAD, are known to the skilled artisan); and selecting the pixel predictor from the set of pixel predictors for each block of the set of blocks based on a lowest number of bits to express the average residual value of the block (Galpin, ¶ 0051: teaches picking a best prediction based on rate distortion cost, i.e. compression performance; see also Galpin, ¶ 0115: teaching a NN is good for finding optimizations While not relied upon and being viewed as unnecessary to sustain the rejection, Examiner finds Hwang’s teachings also relevant and can be considered an alternative ground of rejection; Hwang, ¶ 0122: teaches a discriminator neural network can be used to evaluate compression performance based on a different set of competing features; see also Hwang, ¶ 0175: teaching better performance can be achieved with different sets of features being used; see also Hwang, ¶¶ 0186–0188: explaining the configurability of the NNs based on features).
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 4, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 12 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 13 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 4, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 5, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 6, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, Maeda, and Lim (US 2019/0306536 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, Maeda, and Lim teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the set of pixel predictors is a first set of pixel predictors, further comprising: selecting a subset of blocks from the set of blocks for a pixel predictor reassignment, wherein the pixel predictor reassignment (Examiner interprets Applicant’s feature drawn to reassignment consistent with published paragraph [0034], which explains the predictor for one color component can be used for another color component or may not be, in which case the predictor can be any predictor; Lim, ¶ 0557–0558: teaches that intra prediction can be applied differently among color planes or the same across color planes; It is noted Guo largely teaches these same features as applied to the independent claim); and selecting, for each block of the subset of blocks, a pixel predictor from a second set of pixel predictors, wherein the second set of pixel predictors are different from the first set of pixel predictors (Examiner interprets Applicant’s feature drawn to reassignment consistent with published paragraph [0034], which explains the predictor for one color component can be used for another color component or may not be, in which case the predictor can be any predictor; Lim, ¶ 0557–0558: teaches that intra prediction can be applied differently among color planes or the same across color planes; It is noted Guo largely teaches these same features as applied to the independent claim).
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 Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, and Maeda, with those of Lim, because all five references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice image or video compression would be led to their relevant teachings and because Lim merely explains the state of the art regarding the benefits and tradeoffs of either using the same prediction across color planes for simplicity versus having more accurate predictions for each color plane at the expense of complexity. Thus the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, yielding a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Galpin, Kirchhoffer, Guo, Maeda, and Lim used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 14 lists the same elements as claim 7, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen (US 2021/0127116 A1) teaches “a pixel predictor of the coding block” is the result of motion compensation.
Abdoli et al., “Intra Block-DPCM With Layer Separation of Screen Content in VVC,” 2019.
Kim et al., “Improvement of Implicit Residual DPCM for HEVC,” 2014 Tenth International Conference on Signal-Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems, 2014.
Winken (US 2020/0366906 A1) teaches predicting color components using different resolutions (e.g. claim 1).
Cote (US 2017/0214912 A1) teaches that DC intra prediction mode produces a prediction sample by taking the average of adjacent reference samples (¶ 0034).
De Lagrange (US 2023/0045182 A1) teaches that in the art, “neighboring” blocks may be contiguous or noncontiguous (¶ 0065).
Hwang (US 2021/0112261 A1) Hwang, Fig. 3: illustrates a lower resolution image input into a neural network wherein features of the input image are input into neural network learning model; Hwang, ¶ 0021: teaches the neural network utilizing the lower resolution input image can be used for compression wherein the context includes the input image being a lower resolution monochrome image having no color components and the modeled output is a high resolution monochrome image having color added back thereto; Hwang, ¶ 0102: teaches the extracted features of an input image are fed to the output layer of the machine learning model; Hwang, ¶ 0136: teaches the features include a loss or cost or optimization function, which those skilled in the art recognize as the compression evaluation of rate-distortion optimization.
Xu (US 2019/0149827 A1) teaches a lossless pixel prediction method wherein each color channel is inter-related to the other color channels according to an inter-color-channel prediction residue (Abstract and ¶¶ 0025–0027).
Liu (US 2017/0374372 A1) teaches that, conventionally, a palette predictor table included palette predictors using only one table wherein the predictors applied to all color components, rather than separately (¶ 0109).
Liu (US 2017/0353730 A1) teaches that, for intra prediction, each pixel in a block uses the same predictor value (¶ 0009).
Singh (US 2022/0254070 A1) teaches a limited number of pixel predictors used to losslessly code a pixel into a bitstream (¶ 0052).
Henry (US 2022/0046287 A1) teaches a limited set of local predictors for a pixel in a block (¶ 0147).
Yang (US 2014/0098862 A1) teaches that when the luma and chroma intra prediction modes are the same, a replacement mode can be chosen for the chroma component (¶ 0043).
Sasai (US 2013/0016782 A1) teaches intra prediction in which the predictors are from the neighboring top and left blocks and the same predictor is used for both luma and chroma color channels (¶ 0418).
Takehara (US 2014/0044171 A1) teaches reducing the number of predictor candidates to reduce memory accesses and amount of codes used to code the predictor indexes (¶¶ 0264 and 0308).
Takahashi (US 2014/0126641 A1) teaches reducing bitrate by reducing the number of prediction candidates (¶¶ 0121 and 0125).
Vandame (US 2010/0290531 A1), paragraphs [0026] and [0064], explains that in addition to sum of absolute differences (SAD), the most popular similarity metric used for matching coded blocks to prediction blocks, other similarity metrics, such as MAD, are known to the skilled artisan. MAD is the mean of the absolute differences between the values of pixels of the reference block and the values of the corresponding pixels of the block to be coded.
Vafin (US 2012/0328002 A1) teaches, in RDO, the distortion is measured as the sum of absolute differences (SAD), or other similarity metric, between a prediction block and a target block and the cost can include the residual and side information or just the side information (¶¶ 0062 and 0063).
Liu (US 2016/030479 A1) teaches delta DC residual values are “a difference between an average pixel value of the partition and an average pixel value of the prediction partition.” (Claim 13).
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
Prosecution Insights