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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 25, 2025, have been noted. However, these arguments are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection discussed below. Because this rejection raises new grounds, this action is NON-FINAL.
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 (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, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (US 2021/0368162 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Heo”) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2020/0404261 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 1, Heo discloses: A method comprising:
determining intra prediction information of a current block (Heo: paragraphs [0049] – [0050],
disclosing that intra prediction information for a current block is determined), wherein the intra
prediction information includes a plurality of syntax elements (Heo: paragraphs [0057] and [0069], disclosing use of syntax in coding; paragraphs [0136] – [0137], disclosing a plurality of syntax elements to signal
prediction information);
obtaining a multiple reference line (MRL) index from the plurality of syntax elements (Heo: paragraphs
[0136] – [0137], disclosing use of a multiple reference line index associated with the syntax
elements);
decoding a first candidate reference line and a second candidate reference line based, at least in part, on the
MRL index, wherein the first candidate reference line is one of a set of one or more above neighboring reference lines
(Heo: paragraph [0135], disclosing that the multiple reference line method may perform the intra
prediction using neighboring samples located in the sample line separated by one or three sample
distances with respect to the top and/or left of the current block; paragraph [0136], disclosing that
the multiple reference line index may indicate a following intra reference sample line; paragraph
[0089], disclosing that the encoding/decoding apparatus may derive the prediction samples of the
current block by applying an intra prediction mode—for example, directional mode or non-
directional mode—based on neighboring references samples of the current block; paragraph [0112],
disclosing that the prediction sample may be derived by selecting a reference line having a highest
prediction accuracy among neighboring multi-reference sample lines of the current block), wherein the
second candidate reference line is one of a set of one or more left neighboring reference lines (Heo: paragraph [0135],
disclosing a reference line with respect to the tope and/or left of the current block as a reference
sample); and
generating a prediction block based, at least in part, on intra prediction performed based on the plurality of
syntax elements (Heo: paragraph [0137], disclosing that the intra prediction block is derived based on
the intra prediction of multiple reference line syntax elements),
wherein determining intra prediction information includes determining an intra prediction mode of the current block (Heo: paragraph [0089], disclosing that the intra prediction mode of the current block may be derived and used for intra prediction),
wherein the intra prediction mode is an angular intra prediction mode (Heo: paragraph [0104], disclosing use of angular prediction modes)…
Heo does not explicitly disclose: wherein the intra prediction mode is one of a primary most probable mode or secondary most probably mode, excluding planar mode.
However, Zhao discloses: wherein the intra prediction mode is one of a primary most probable mode or secondary most probably mode, excluding planar mode (Zhao: paragraph [0028], disclosing that the most probable mode can refer to a primary MPM or a secondary MPM or both; paragraph [0106], disclosing excluding the planar mode).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use the most probable modes of Zhao in the method of Heo.
One would have been motivated to modify Heo in this manner in order to better exploit gains from multiple line reference pixel coding (Zhao: paragraphs [0003] – [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, Heo and Zhao disclose: The method of claim 1, gurther comprising: determining a maximum number of reference lines to be used for intra prediction based on the plurality of syntax elements (Zhao: paragraph [0193], disclosing that a maximum number of reference lines may be used for intra-prediction based on a number of reference lines used in other coding tools; paragraph [0196], disclosing that information about coding tools may be signaled using syntax).
The motivation for combining Heo and Zhao has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Heo and Zhao disclose: The method of claim 5, wherein determining the
maximum number of reference lines further comprises: determining a maximum number of reference lines in the set of
one or more above neighboring reference lines; and determining a maximum number of reference lines in the set of one
or more left neighboring reference lines (Heo: paragraphs [0135], disclosing intra prediction using multiple
reference lines; Zhao: Fig. 8, paragraph [0193], and claim 7, disclosing that a maximum number of reference lines may be used for intra-prediction based on neighboring reference lines).
The motivation for combining Heo and Zhao has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Heo and Zhao disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein the MRL index further comprises an above MRL index corresponding to the first candidate reference line, and a left MRL index corresponding to the second candidate reference line (Heo: Fig. 10, paragraphs [0135] – [0136], disclosing use of a multiple reference line index for intra prediction with respect to a current block using a the neighboring samples of a first top line and the neighboring samples of a first left line), wherein the above MRL index independently specifies a first respective reference line of the one or more above neighboring reference lines, and wherein the left MRL index independently specifies a second respective reference line one or more left neighboring reference lines (Zhao: paragraphs [0190] – [0191], disclosing that the above reference line index and left reference line index may be separate and independent).
The motivation for combining Heo and Zhao has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore
rejected on the same premise. (Note that Heo discloses implementation via instructions stored on a
computer readable medium in communication with a processor in paragraph [0222].)
Regarding claim 11, Heo and Zhao disclose: The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 9, wherein the set of instructions is further executable by the processor to: map pixels of the first candidate reference line to the second candidate reference line (Heo: paragraph [0104], disclosing use of angular prediction modes; paragraphs [0041], [0091] and [0112], disclosing mapping of pixels to reference lines).
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. (Note that Heo discloses implementation via an
encoder/decoder and associated instructions stored on a computer readable medium in
communication with a processor in paragraphs [0065] and [0222].)
Regarding claim 18, Heo and Zhao disclose: The video coding system of claim 17, wherein the intra prediction mode is a secondary most probable mode (Zhao: paragraph [0028], disclosing use of a secondary most probable mode).
The motivation for combining Heo and Zhao has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 8, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heo in view of Zhao as applied to claim 1/9/17 above, and further in view of Filippov et al. (WO 2020/190179 A1, already of record, referred to herein as “Filippov”).
Regarding claim 8, Heo and Zhao disclose: The method of claim 1, wherein a… MRL index values
corresponds to the first candidate reference line (Heo: Fig. 10, paragraph [0136], disclosing a multiple
reference line index representing whether a line is used for the intra prediction with respect to a
current block; paragraph [0112], disclosing that the prediction sample may be derived by selecting a
reference line having a highest prediction accuracy among neighboring multi-reference sample lines
of the current block).
Heo does not explicitly disclose a first range of MRL index values.
However, Filippov discloses a first range of MRL index values (Filippov: pg. 55, lines 25-28,
disclosing that a range that indicates what samples belong to a selected line or column of reference
samples may be determined).
At the time the application was effectively filed, it would have been obvious for a person
having ordinary skill in the art to use the range of multiple reference line reference indices of
Filippov in the method of Heo and Zhao.
One would have been motivated to modify Heo and Zhao in this manner in order to better permit subsampling, interpolation filtering, or calculation of a linear expression from the reference samples (Filippov: page 55, lines 30-31).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8, above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Braniff whose telephone number is (571) 270-5009. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM to 4PM.
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, Thai Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7382. 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.
CHRISTOPHER T. BRANIFF
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2484
/CHRISTOPHER BRANIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484