DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 09/30/2025 in which claims 1–19, 30, and 39 are cancelled, claims 21, 24, 25, 31, 34, 35, and 40 are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is withdrawn in view of the amendments to claim 40. Remarks, 7–8.
On pages 8–10 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the Galpin, Chen, and Esenlik are deficient for failing to teach or suggest the features added by way of amendment. Examiner finds the arguments moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Specifically, the rejection of the independent claims now additionally relies on the teachings of Seregin, which teaches aspects of the coefficients of the LIC’s linear convolution model, such as scaling factors according to template samples, a non-linear bitDepth precision shift coefficient, and the offset coefficient (being a median of the bitDepth of the system). See rejection, infra. Accordingly, the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 10–11.
Recommendation
Examiner recommends Applicant further define in the independent claim a specific derivation of the non-linear element P and a specific derivation of a bias element, for example related to bitDepth, to reach allowable subject matter. Examiner notes these features are interpreted according to paragraphs [0197] and [0199]–[0201] of the published Specification, which explains there is, “a coefficient of a single non-linear element (P)” and that the non-linear element (P) may be determined based on a mean value of the current block or reference block or the center value of the current block and that the bias element is the median value of bitDepth (published ¶ 0213). As currently claimed the elements are too broadly claimed such that all non-linear elements and bias elements are covered by the claims. 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). Where the specification is deficient in describing every means for achieving the claimed results, the claims are not enabled. “[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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21–29, 31–38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the independent claims, in reciting “wherein the second coefficient is a coefficient related to a non-linear,” recite a feature which appears to be an incomplete thought. Therefore, the skilled artisan cannot be reasonably certain of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Examiner notes Applicant’s Specification, specifically published paragraphs [0197] and [0199]–[0201], explains the second coefficient may be a non-linear element representing the center pixel value or the mean value of the reference or current block.
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 21–24, 26–29, 31–34, 36–38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin (US 2021/0051342 A1), Chen (US 2023/0206414 A1), and Seregin (US 2020/0221111 A1).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Galpin, Chen, and Seregin teaches or suggests a device for decoding a video signal, the device comprising a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: configure a first template including neighboring blocks of a current block, configure a second template including neighboring blocks of a reference block of the current block (Galpin, Fig. 2: teaches templates for a current block and a reference block; Galpin, ¶¶ 0004 and 0021: teaches that linear prediction models such as CCLM, LIC, and BIO can utilize spatial neighboring templates for the block being coded and a reference block of the block being coded wherein the templates are obtained by minimizing a distortion (i.e. similarity) metric; see also Galpin, ¶¶ 0043, 0049, and 0090: explaining the distortion metric can be MSE or any other similarity method), obtain a convolutional model based on the first template and the second template (Examiner notes that in image processing, convolution and correlation are used interchangeably; When signals are symmetric, convolution and correlation (auto- or cross-correlation) are the same operation; Examiner interprets this limitation consistent with paragraph [0195] of Applicant’s published Specification, which explains the convolutional model is akin to an LIC linear model and represents a correlation (e.g. auto- or cross-correlation) between the current block template and the reference block template Ax = B; Chen, ¶ 0066: teaches determining a similarity between a template image and a current image under consideration wherein the similarity determination can be accomplished by using a similarity function, such as cross-correlation, which utilizes convolution; These teachings of Chen, combined with those of Galpin explaining that similarity functions are used as a distortion metric for LIC template matching, teaches or suggests Applicant’s use of a convolutional model to relate the similarity between the first and second templates), predict the current block based on the convolutional model (Galpin, ¶ 0004: teaches prediction models for the predicting blocks based on templates include LIC prediction), wherein filter coefficients of the convolutional model includes a first plurality of coefficients (Examiner notes this feature is interpreted according to paragraph [0197] of the published Specification, which explains the first coefficients are from the reference template for LIC; Galpin, ¶ 0004: teaches prediction models for predicting blocks based on templates including LIC prediction; see also Seregin, ¶¶ 0129–132, 0135, and 0138: likewise teaching LIC template matching wherein the LIC parameters include one or more scaling factors derived from templates of the current and prediction blocks), a second coefficient, and a third coefficient, wherein the first plurality of coefficients is obtained by using samples included in the first template, wherein the second coefficient is a coefficient related to a non-linear (Examiner notes this feature represents an incomplete thought; It is interpreted according to paragraphs [0197] and [0199]–[0201] of the published Specification, which explains there is, “a coefficient of a single non-linear element (P)” and that the non-linear element (P) may be determined based on a mean value of the current block or reference block or the center value of the current block; Seregin, ¶ 0132: teaches a shift parameter (i.e. coefficient) for LIC in addition to the alpha and beta linear parameters wherein the shift parameter is for bitDepth precision normalization; see Bordes under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action), wherein the third coefficient is a coefficient related to bias (Examiner interprets the first, second, and third coefficient(s) according to paragraphs [0197] and [0199]–[0203] of the published Specification, which explains the first plurality of coefficients are coefficients of neighboring samples of the current block, the second coefficient is a mean value of a color component or similar, and the third coefficient is a bias term represented by a median of a bitDepth wherein the example of 10-bit would yield 512; Seregin, ¶ 0125: teaches that for LIC, the offset coefficient can be a fixed offset of 128, which the skilled artisan recognizes as the median of 8-bit depth video, one of the most, if not the most, popular of bitDepths in this art), wherein each of the filter coefficients of the convolutional model is a value that minimizes a mean square error (MSE) between samples in the first template and samples in the second template (Galpin, ¶¶ 0004 and 0021: teaches that linear prediction models such as CCLM, LIC, and BIO can utilize spatial neighboring templates for the block being coded and a reference block of the block being coded wherein the templates are obtained by minimizing a distortion (i.e. similarity) metric; see also Galpin, ¶¶ 0043, 0049, and 0090: explaining the distortion metric can be MSE or any other similarity method).
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 Chen, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to utilize template matching would be led to their relevant teachings and because calculating image similarity between templates for LIC or other template matching purposes using a convolutional model is a well-known approach in the art such that 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 Galpin and Chen 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 Chen, with those of Seregin, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to utilize template matching would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as evidenced by the prior art of record, limiting the precision of template matching to integer-pel precision is a well-known approach in the art such to simplify similar searching such that 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 Galpin, Chen, and Seregin used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Galpin, Chen, and Seregin teaches or suggests the device of claim 21, wherein a first color component of samples of the first template and a second color component of samples of the second template for the convolutional model are the same (Examiner notes this is true for LIC, wherein “LIC assumes a linear correlation between luma samples of a reference frame and a current frame” as defined by Bandyopadhyay, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; Therefore, in merely teaching templates used for LIC, Galpin teaches the templates are for a same color component).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Galpin, Chen, and Seregin teaches or suggests the device of claim 22, wherein the first color component and the second color component are a luma component (Examiner notes this is true for LIC, wherein “LIC assumes a linear correlation between luma samples of a reference frame and a current frame” as defined by Bandyopadhyay, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; Therefore, in merely teaching templates used for LIC, Galpin teaches the templates are for a same color component, namely the luma component).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Galpin, Chen, Seregin, and Esenlik teaches or suggests the device of claim 21, wherein a number of the first plurality of coefficients is five (Examiner finds the number of coefficients is arbitrary; Seregin, ¶¶ 0129–132, 0135, and 0138: likewise teaching LIC template matching wherein the LIC parameters include one or more scaling factors derived from templates of the current and prediction blocks).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Galpin, Chen, and Seregin teaches or suggests the device of claim 21, wherein the reference block is a block that is temporally or spatially distant from the current block (Galpin, Fig. 2: teaches templates for a current block and a reference block wherein the blocks are temporally distant from each other).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Galpin, Chen, and Seregin teaches or suggests the device of claim 21, wherein a size of the first template and a size of the second template are the same (Galpin, Fig. 2: illustrates that the templates are the same size between the current block’s template and the reference block’s template; see also Park, under Conclusion Section of this Office Action).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Galpin, Chen, and Seregin teaches or suggests the device of claim 27, wherein the size of the first template and the size of the second template are a pre-determined size (Galpin, Fig. 2: illustrates that the templates for the current block and the reference block match the pre-determined dimensions of the blocks to which they relate; see also Park, under Conclusion Section of this Office Action).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Galpin, Chen, and Seregin teaches or suggests the device of claim 28, wherein the pre-determined size is in an integer sample unit (Seregin, ¶ 0143: teaches LIC can use integer-positioned samples for the template).
Claim 31 lists the same elements as claim 21, but is drawn to the corresponding encoder rather than the decoder. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 21 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 32 lists the same elements as claim 22, but is drawn to the corresponding encoder rather than the decoder. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 22 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 33 lists the same elements as claim 23, but is drawn to the corresponding encoder rather than the decoder. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 23 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 34 lists the same elements as claim 24, but is drawn to the corresponding encoder rather than the decoder. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 24 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 36 lists the same elements as claim 26, but is drawn to the corresponding encoder rather than the decoder. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 26 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 37 lists the same elements as claim 27, but is drawn to the corresponding encoder rather than the decoder. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 27 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 38 lists the same elements as claim 29, but is drawn to the corresponding encoder rather than the decoder. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 29 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 40 lists the same elements as claim 21, but is drawn to a CRM rather than the device decoding the CRM. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 21 applies to the instant claim. Examiner notes this CRM is not in proper form under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 25 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galpin, Chen, Seregin, and Esenlik (US 2020/0137416 A1).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Galpin, Chen, Seregin, and Esenlik teaches or suggests the device of claim 24, wherein each of the first plurality of coefficients is obtained based on a specific sample included in the first template, a left sample of the specific sample, a right sample of the specific sample, an upper sample of the specific sample, a lower sample of the specific sample (Examiner interprets this claim is referencing a bilateral filter or cross filter; Esenlik, e.g. Fig. 6 and ¶ 0098: teaches cross search pattern at integer pixel locations; Esenlik, ¶ 0099: teaches distortion or correlation can be calculated using MSE, correlation coefficient, or any other known technique).
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, Chen, and Seregin, with those of Esenlik, because all four references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to utilize template matching would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as evidenced by the prior art of record, calculating image similarity between templates for LIC or other template matching purposes using a convolutional model or bilateral filtering is a well-known approach in the art such that 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 Galpin, Chen, and Esenlik used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 35 lists the same elements as claim 25, but is drawn to the corresponding encoder rather than the decoder. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 25 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lim (2021/0352273 A1) teaches determining prediction parameters based on correlation and least mean square method (e.g. ¶ 0598).
Hormis (US 2006/0067405 A1) teaches using convolution and filter coefficients coupled to MSE decision for determining motion estimation, which is a similarity algorithm (e.g. ¶ 0021).
Aoki (US 2011/0243460 A1) teaches cross correlation for image template matching for indicating similarity using a convolution operation and describes the relatedness between a convolution and a cross correlation (e.g. ¶ 0023).
Hipp (US 2009/0285466 A1) teaches correlation calculated for assessing similarity between defined image regions within two or more images utilizing image convolution, wherein the description evidences the relationship between mathematical correlation or similarity and mathematical convolution, and wherein the explanation further teaches that template matching is known to utilize computed correlation (¶¶ 0053 and 0059).
Bandyopadhyay (US 2022/0094940 A1) teaches, “LIC assumes a linear correlation between luma samples of a reference frame and a current frame.” (¶ 0105).
Park (US 2020/0296414 A1) teaches the templates for the candidate reference block has the same size as the template for the current block (¶ 0093).
Liu (US 2021/0344909 A1) teaches a bilateral filter for use with LIC (Fig. 35).
Barkan (US 2013/0148908 A1) teaches a bilateral filter can take account of not only geometric distances in the spatial domain but also similarities in the intensity domain and further teaches that a bilateral filter typically features a convolution mask (¶ 0088).
Mori (US 2010/0290716 A1) teaches filter processing is a convolution operation and further teaches that when utilizing a bilateral filter, luminance differences between a target pixel and a reference pixel can be properly negated (¶ 0006).
Hashizume (US 2010/0111407 A1) teaches the bilateral filter for extracting luminance information from an image is a convolution operation (¶ 0052).
Rusanovskyy (US 2020/0029096 A1) teaches a bilateral filter (e.g. Fig. 11 and ¶ 0174) wherein the filter represents a convolution of neighboring samples and the central sample (e.g. ¶ 0174) and discusses LIC templates (e.g. ¶ 0221).
Sasao (US 2022/0044020 A1) teaches center target pixels convolved using filter coefficients utilizing a product-sum calculation (¶ 0046).
Lim (US 2021/0218962 A1) teaches Cholesky decomposition and cross-correlation (e.g. ¶ 0279) and distortion measured as MSE (¶ 0280).
Bordes (US 2022/0021869 A1) teaches the shift parameter in LIC is for normalizing the output to 10-bits for 10-bit precision (¶¶ 0097–0101).
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 extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached 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 571-273-8933.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 2481