DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments filed on 12/01/2025 and the Supplemental Amendments filed on 12/24/2025 and is submitted as a Non-Final for the reasons given below.
In the filed response, Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 17-18 have been amended, where Claims 1, 9, and 18 are independent claims. Claims 4, 5, 12, and 13 are canceled with Claims 14-16 being previously canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 17-18 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 02/05/2026. The submission 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
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-8, filed 12/24/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-3, 7-11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2), along with the rejections of claims 4-6, 12, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Wang US 2022/0224922 A1 and Naser et al. US 2025/0055981 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Wang and Naser, respectively, and for this reason, the current office action is submitted as a Non-Final. Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. Based on updated searches, Wang and Naser were identified as relevant art in light of the amended limitation “deriving a Template-based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD) mode for a current block;… wherein, based on the top neighboring block being present in the same CTU as the current block, the TIMD mode is derived based on at least one of an intra prediction mode or an IPM intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block, and wherein the intra prediction mode for the current block is derived based on the TIMD mode.” as previously recited in now canceled claims 4-5 and 12-13. Wang shows when a current block, a plurality of templates associated with the current block (e.g. top template containing a top neighboring block – fig. 35), and a plurality of template-reference samples associated with the plurality of templates are collocated within the same video unit (e.g. CTU), Decoder-Side Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) is enabled (e.g. ¶0210). Although Wang does not explicitly refer to enabling Template based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD), the literature shows DIMD and TIMD to be similar techniques that appear to be used interchangeably for deriving an intra prediction mode using previously decoded blocks that surround the current block. This is illustrated in for e.g. fig. 7 of Naser et al. US 2025/0055981 A1, where two TIMD generated modes may be similar to those generated by DIMD. Also please see ¶0121, where DIMD and/or TIMD may be used. The abstract of Li et al. US 2023/0108480 also shows one or more intra predictors of a current block can be derived based on neighboring samples via either DIMD or TIMD. In ¶0002 of Liu et al. US 2017/0353730 A1, template-based intra prediction is also known as DIMD, and lastly, Xiu et al. “Decoder-side Intra Mode Derivation for Block-based Video Coding”, IEEE, 2016”, describe the DIMD algorithm on pg. 2 in Sect III A. “Template based intra mode derivation”. The examiner therefore respectfully submits that based on the teachings of Wang for enabling DIMD, and when further noting the similarity of both DIMD and TIMD, it would have been within the level of skill in the art to also consider applying other intra prediction schemes, such as TIMD, when a current block and its neighboring blocks are collocated within the same CTU.
3. In addition to Wang above, other relevant art includes the work of Kotra et al. WO 2019/007490 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Kotra, where Kotra shows DIMD can be enabled when there is no coding tree block (CTB) border between the coding blocks and the neighbor comprising the first template 411 (i.e. top template) as shown in fig. 4. Please see pg. 16 lines 29-34 and pg. 17 line 1. If there is no CTB border, this is taken to mean they both share the same CTB. Kotra further shows a CTU is referred to as a CTB (pg. 12 lines 31-33). Like Wang above, Kotra only refers to DIMD, however, since this is similar to TIMD as previously noted, Kotra’s teachings are deemed relevant. For these reasons, the examiner respectfully submits that Wang (or Kotra) and Naser, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest the features of amended claims 1, 9, and 18, given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Please see below for details.
4. Also, after further considering Claim 17 (i.e. “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method of claim 9”), this is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the encoding method of claim 9 to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is merely the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 17 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by any prior art which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream. Please see details below.
5. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
6. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 17-18 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2020/0275118 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang, since this is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the encoding method of step 9 to generate the bitstream (MPEP §2113). For the reasons given above in the examiner’s note, the storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 17 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the storage medium. The encoding method is therefore not given patentable weight and the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data. Please refer to Wang below for support.
Regarding claim 17, Wang teaches and/or suggests “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream [For the reasons given above, please see for e.g. ¶0048 for storing encoded video data (i.e. bitstream) via a storage device. Also note ¶0250] generated by the image encoding method of claim 9.” [The process for generating the bitstream above is not given patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05(III)]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naser et al. US 2025/0055981 A1 (with reference to Foreign Priority Data EP 21306876.0), in view of Wang et al. US 2022/0224922 A1, hereinafter referred to as Naser and Wang, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following features, Naser is found to teach and/or suggest, “An image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising: obtaining image information including prediction related information from a bitstream [See for e.g. ¶0087 and ¶0116, regarding obtained coded information from a bitstream. Said information may include for e.g. an indication of DIMD, TIMD, etc.]; deriving a Template-based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD) mode for a current block [The TIMD mode must be derived to be used as shown for e.g. in fig. 7. If an indication is received for TIMD (see above), then TIMD is enabled for deriving TIMD generated intra coding mode(s). See for e.g. ¶0138.]; deriving an intra prediction mode for the current block based on the prediction related information [Fig. 7 depicts deriving two coding modes M1 and M2 via TIMD. As shown, these can also be generated via DIMD]; generating prediction samples for the current block based on the intra prediction mode for the current block [See intra prediction 360 in video decoder (fig. 3) for generating the predicted block]; and generating reconstructed samples for the current block based on the prediction samples for the current block,” [Video decoder (fig. 3) generates reconstructed samples for the current block based on the generated predicted block] However, Naser does not appear to address the remaining features of claim 1. Wang on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest these features, i.e. “wherein the intra prediction mode is derived based on whether a top neighboring block of the current block is present in a same coding tree unit (CTU) as the current block [See for e.g. ¶0210 where the DIMD coding tool may be applied when a current block, the plurality of templates associated with the current block, and the plurality of template-reference samples associated with the plurality of templates are collocated within the same CTU. A top neighboring block may be found for e.g. in top template-A, 2430 (fig. 35)] wherein, based on the top neighboring block being present in the same CTU as the current block [Same as above], the TIMD mode is derived based on at least one of an intra prediction mode or an IPM intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block [Although TIMD is not referenced in Wang, TIMD modes may be similar to those obtained using DIMD (please see for e.g. fig 7 of Naser above). As such, it would have been within the level of skill in the art to enable TIMD recognizing Wang’s teachings when the above conditions for collocation are satisfied], and wherein the intra prediction mode for the current block is derived based on the TIMD mode.” [Same as above] Although Wang’s teachings pertain to enabling DIMD when the current block, the plurality of templates associated with the current block, and the plurality of template-reference samples associated with the plurality of templates are col-located within the same CTU, applying a prediction mode derivation tool, such as DIMD or TIMD, as in Naser, is well known in the art for deriving an intra prediction mode using previously decoded blocks. Thus, Wang’s teachings are deemed relevant. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the techniques of Naser for deriving intra prediction modes to add the teachings of Wang as above for signaling DIMD to help improve the efficiency of intra mode coding (e.g. ¶0151).
Regarding claim 2, (Currently Amended) Naser and Wang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Naser further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising: configuring a Most Probable Mode (MPM) list including intra prediction mode candidates for the current block [See abstract along with fig. 7 regarding generating a MPM list with TIMD and/or DIMD], wherein the intra prediction mode for the current block is derived based on the prediction related information, wherein the prediction related information includes at least one of not planar flag information, MPM index information or MPM remainder information [In light of the ‘or’ condition above, and given the BRI of the limitation, Naser’s syntax element corresponding to the MPM list (e.g. ¶0137) can be construed as “MPM index information”, since it enables the index within the list to be parsed for determining the intra prediction mode. Also please refer to Wang below for support], and wherein, based on the top neighboring block being present in the same CTU as the current block, the IPM intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block is included in the MPM list.” [Naser shows in ¶0121-¶0123, for example, that template samples on the top of the current block may be used to derive the intra prediction mode(s), which in turn may be included the MPM list. Fig. 7 further illustrates this]. However, since Naser does not address the above limitation “based on the top neighboring block being present in the same CTU as the current block”, the work of Wang from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or address this feature. [See for e.g. ¶0210 where DIMD may be applied when a current block, the plurality of templates (e.g. a top template in fig. 35) associated with the current block, and the plurality of template-reference samples associated with the plurality of templates are collocated within the same CTU]. Also regarding signaling “MPM index information” [See for e.g. ¶0157 of Wang]. The motivation for combining Naser and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, (Currently Amended) Naser and Wang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Naser addresses the application of TIMD, as well as DIMD (e.g. fig. 7), Naser does not teach and/or suggest “further comprising: wherein, based on the top neighboring block being not present in the same CTU as the current block, the TIMD mode is derived based on a template of the current block, and wherein the intra prediction mode for the current block is derived based on the TIMD mode.” (emphasis added). As such, the work of Wang from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or address these features. [See for e.g. ¶0220, where DIMD is enabled if a block, the plurality of templates associated with the block, and the plurality of template-reference samples associated with the plurality of templates are not collocated within the same CTU, i.e. not in the same CTU.] Although Wang only refers to DIMD, using another similar intra prediction coding tool, such as TIMD, would have been within the level of skill in the art (see e.g. see Naser above). In light of this, the motivation for combining Naser and Wang is the same as that discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 2. The amended limitation “the intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block is included in the MPM list.” is understood to mean the same as “the IPM intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block is included in the MPM list.” (as recited in claim 2) since IPM is believed to be an acronym for “Intra Prediction Mode”.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the decoding method of claim 1, since an encoder and decoder perform inverse coding operations that enable compressed data to be received and decompressed at a destination device. For support, please refer to the video encoder and video decoder in figs. 2 and 3 of Naser, respectively. Wang also provides similar support in figs. 2-3.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the decoding method of claim 2.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the encoding method of claim 9. As to the computer readable storage medium, please refer to ¶0008 and ¶0159 of Naser for support. Also please refer to for e.g. ¶0011 of Wang.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the decoding method of claim 1. As to a method for transmitting data for video, compressed data being received by the decoder of fig, 3, implies said data was transmitted. This is also seen in the decoder in fig. 3 of Wang. Hence, there must be a method for transmitting said data compressed by the encoder and received by the decoder.
Claims 3, 8, and 11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naser, in view of Wang, and in further view of Kotra et al. WO 2019/007490 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kotra.
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) Naser and Wang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. As in claim 2 above (see citations), Naser and Wang teach and/or suggest “further comprising: configuring a Most Probable Mode (MPM) list including intra prediction mode candidates for the current block, wherein the intra prediction mode for the current block is derived based on the prediction related information, wherein the prediction related information includes at least one of not planar flag information, MPM index information or MPM remainder information, [Please refer to citations presented in claim 2] and wherein, based on the top neighboring block being not present in the same CTU as the current block, the IPM intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block is not included in the MPM list.” [Naser does not address “based on the top neighboring block being not present in the same CTU as the current block”. Although Wang discloses a template(s) not being collocated within the same video unit (e.g. CTU), DIMD is still enabled (e.g. ¶0277) suggesting the derived IPM is included in the MPM list. Please see Kotra below for support] Since Naser and Wang, in combination do not address “and wherein, based on the top neighboring block being not present in the same CTU as the current block, the IPM intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block is not included in the MPM list.” (emphasis added), the work of Kotra from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or address this feature. [Please note examiner’s response # 3. In pg. 16 lines 29-34 and pg. 17 line 1 with reference to fig. 4. The DIMD coding tool can be disabled for coding units whose top borders are aligned with and concur with CTB borders, i.e. there are borders between CTBs. If there is a border, this is taken to mean they do not share the same CTB. As such, DIMD is not applied which suggests the top neighboring block is not included in the MPM list] Given Kotra’s teachings, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intra coding techniques of Naser and Wang to add the teachings of Kotra related to DIMD tool computational complexity reduction, in order to help increase the efficiency of intra prediction by disabling a part of a template or the entire template matching especially on CTB boundaries (e.g. pg. 4 lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of claim 3. The amended limitation “the intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block is not included in the MPM list.” is understood to mean the same as “the IPM intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block is not included in the MPM list.” (as recited in claim 3) since IPM is believed to be an acronym for “Intra Prediction Mode”.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the decoding method of claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to PTO 892 for additional references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A HANSELL JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-0615. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10 am- 7 pm.
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 571-272-7384. 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.
/RICHARD A HANSELL JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486