DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 10/02/2025 and is being submitted as a Non-Final for the reasons given below.
In the filed response, claims 1, 4, and 11 have been amended, with claims 1 and 11 being independent claims. Further, claims 2, 3, 5-10, and 12 have been cancelled and new independent claim 13 has been added.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4, 11, and 13 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6, filed 10/02/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the incorporated subject matter of claims 5 and 6 as well as the limitations of intervening claim 4. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, after carefully reconsidering the art of record and performing updated searches, the examiner finds that a new ground of rejection can be made in view of Kotra et al. US WO 2019/007490 A1, in view of new prior art Li et al. US 2022/0201281 A1 (with reference to Provisional application No. 63/129,004), hereinafter referred to as Kotra and Li, respectively. For the reasons elaborated on below, this office action is submitted as a Non-final.
2. Although initially deemed allowable, the limitations of claims 5-6, along with intervening claim 3, were reconsidered in light of both Kotra and Li. As such, the examiner respectfully submits that Kotra reasonably teaches and/or suggests “wherein based on a neighboring block of the current block not being available, the flag is not signaled from a bitstream and is derived as 1” as recited for e.g. in claim 1. In particular, when a neighboring block of a current block is not available, the DIMD flag need not be signaled and can be inferred to be ‘0’ at the decoder (e.g. pg. 6 lines 3-7). Although the inferred value is ‘0’, Kotra alternatively shows the value can be reversed to be equal to ‘1’ (see pg. 18 lines 20-23) as claimed. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims, the examiner can interpret the condition of “a neighboring block of the current block not being available” to mean DIMD is not performed, which then suggests gradients are not configured. However given this condition, Kotra does not appear to set the intra prediction mode to DC or Planar mode as required, i.e. “the intra prediction mode of the current block is set to a planar mode or a DC mode.” For this reason, the examiner relies on the work of Li to show that if gradients are not configured, this is taken to mean the intensity of gradient G will be zero and thus, the orientation O would be assigned to ‘0’ (planar mode) by default. Li’s corresponding priority document support can be found in ¶0028. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on below, the examiner respectfully submits Kotra and Li, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest all of the disclosed features of independent claims 1, 11, and 13 given their BRI.
3. Applicant’s response and amendments with respect to the objections of claims 3-4 are acknowledged. As such, the objections are withdrawn.
4. Applicant’s response and amendment with respect to the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are acknowledged. For this reason the rejection is withdrawn.
5. Regarding the objection to the specification, in particular the title, the examiner acknowledges Applicant’s response and withdraws the objection.
6. 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.
7. In light of the foregoing, claims 1, 4, 11, and 13 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
8. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is believed the limitation “…based on a flag of the current block” (line 2) should read “…based on a flag of the current block being signaled from a bitstream when a neighboring region adjacent to the current block is available, the flag indicating...” as indicated for e.g. in ¶0009-¶0010 of the filed specification. Examiner’s rationale is based on the amended features “wherein based on a neighboring block of the current block not being available, the flag is not signaled from a bitstream”. Please check. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein based on a neighboring block of the current block not being available, the flag is not signaled from a bitstream and is derived as 1” (emphasis added). Although this is found in ¶0011 of the filed specification, ¶0010 shows that when the neighboring region of the current block is not available, the flag may not be signaled from the bitstream, and the flag may be derived as '0' (emphasis added). As such, it is not entirely clear whether the value of the flag should be ‘0’ or ‘1’ as both ¶0010 and ¶0011 appear to show different values. For this reason the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, claims 11 and 13 recite similar limitations as claim 1. For the same reasons given above, claims 11 and 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 depends on claim 1 and therefore includes all of its limitations. Thus, claim 4 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kotra et al. US WO 2019/007490 A1, in view of Li et al. US 2022/0201281 A1 (with reference to Provisional application No. 63/129,004), hereinafter referred to as Kotra and Li, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Kotra discloses and/or suggests “An image decoding method [See abstract and the video decoder in fig. 2], comprising: deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block based on a flag of the current block [See DIMD flag on for e.g. pg. 14 lines 7-8. If equal to ‘1’, DIMD is performed to derive an intra prediction mode of a current block. Also please note pg. 17 lines 29-33 and pg. 18 lines 19-21 for support], the flag indicating whether the intra prediction mode of the current block is derived based on a gradient between at least two samples belonging to a neighboring region adjacent to the current block [If DIMD flag is equal to ‘1’, the intra prediction mode is derived via DIMD based on template matching, i.e. a neighboring region adjacent to the current block is available (e.g. pg. 20 line 26-27). With respect to gradient detection, see for e.g. pg. 17 lines 10-15. DIMD is known to employ gradient analysis (for e.g. see Li below).]; determining a reference sample of the current block [Please refer to the templates of the target/current block and references of said templates in fig. 4]; and generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the intra prediction mode and the reference sample [Please refer to decoder (fig. 2) for generating a prediction block], wherein based on a neighboring block of the current block not being available [See for e.g. pg. 6 lines 3-7 regarding unavailability of a reconstructed coding block for coding blocks at an image border (e.g. a left border). Thus, DIMD is not performed, which is understood to mean gradients are not configured], the flag is not signaled from a bitstream [Pg. 6 lines 3-7 indicate the DIMD flag need not be signaled and can be inferred to be ‘0’ at the decoder, i.e. DIMD not performed. As such, signaling overhead can be reduced] and is derived as 1 [Although pg. 6 lines 3-7 indicate the DIMD flag is inferred to have a value of ‘0’, Kotra alternatively shows the value can be reversed to be equal to ‘1’ (see pg. 18 lines 20-23)], and wherein based on the flag being derived as 1 [See pg. 6 lines 3-7 and pg. 18 lines 20-23 above, where DIMD is not performed, which is understood to mean gradients are not configured], the intra prediction mode of the current block is set to a planar mode or a DC mode.” [Kotra does not appear to address the foregoing feature. See Li below for support] Kotra’s teachings above are deemed relevant in light of applying DIMD determination for image coding. However, Kotra does not seem to employ planar or DC modes as required. Li on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned limitation, i.e. “the intra prediction mode of the current block is set to a planar mode or a DC mode.” [¶0033 of Li describes gradient calculations for DIMD. Per ¶0037, if gradients are not configured, this is taken to mean the intensity of gradient G is zero. If this is the case, the orientation O is assigned to ‘0’ (planar mode) by default. Also please refer to ¶0080. Priority document support can be found in ¶0028 and ¶0048] Given Li’s teachings regarding DIMD for MPM list construction in video coding (e.g. abstract), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Kotra for controlling the application of DIMD to help reduce computational complexity (abstract), to add the teachings of Li as above such that use of more optimal intra prediction modes may reduce a number of bits used to represent video data, thereby improving coding efficiency (e.g. ¶0006).
Regarding claim 4, (Currently Amended) Kotra and Li teach all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Kotra further teaches and/or suggests, “wherein when the neighboring block of the current block is available, the flag is signaled from the bitstream.” [Given the DIMD flag does not need to be signaled if a reconstructed coding block is not available (pg. 6 lines 3-7), this then suggest that if the reconstructed coding block is available, the DIMD flag is signaled from the bitstream]
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1 since encoding and decoding are inverse operations of each other to facilitate decompressing and reconstructing encoded video data at a terminal device. See Kotra’s encoder and decoder in figs. 1 and 2, respectively. Also please note fig. 1 of Li.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the methods of Claims 1 and 11 since decoding compressed data by the encoder requires that said data be transmitted to a decoder at a receiving device. This is illustrated in fig. 1 of Li for example.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see additional references in PTO 892.
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