DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 04/08/2026.
In the filed response, independent Claims 1, 11, and 13 have been amended with Claims 2-10 and 12 being canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 1, 11, and 13 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/20/2026. 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
2. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 5-7, filed 04/08/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections of the instant claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon careful consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ahn et al. US 2021/0051334 A1 (see PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Ahn. Please see examiner’s responses below.
3. Although the amendments of Claims 1, 11, and 13 appear to incorporate the subject matter of canceled claim 4, i.e. “wherein based on a neighboring block of the current block being available, the flag is signaled from a bitstream”, they also include removing the limitation “based on the flag being derived as 1”, where the value of the flag is no longer a requirement. Further, “the intra prediction mode of the current block is set to a pre-defined mode” has been added to the claims. Based on the foregoing, the examiner respectfully submits the scope of the claims has changed. Claims 11 and 13 also recite the clarifying limitation “a flag indicating whether the intra prediction mode of the current block is determined based on the gradient is encoded into a bitstream”. As such, the work of Ahn is introduced to address “and the intra prediction mode of the current block is set to a pre-defined mode, and wherein the pre-defined mode is a planar mode or a DC mode.” as recited in Claims 1, 11, and 13. Although Ahn’s teachings do not explicitly refer to DIMD as in Kotra, the condition for specifying an unavailable neighboring block to a current block is believed to be similar to what is described in Kotra with respect to the CTB borders. See for e.g. pg. 16 lines 29-33 of Kotra and ¶0118 of Ahn. For an unavailable neighboring block in Kotra, the DIMD flag is not signaled from the bitstream as required (e.g. pg. 18 lines 16-33), however, Kotra does not explicitly set the intra prediction mode of the current block to a “predefined mode” which can be either a planar mode or a DC mode. The examiner respectfully submits that although Kotra does not explicitly disclose setting the intra prediction mode of the current block to a predefined mode when the DIMD flag is not signaled (e.g. pg. 18 lines 16-33), a DIMD flag having a value of 0 (or 1) means that DIMD is not performed. If DIMD is not performed, this can reasonably suggest any conventional intra mode can be used which includes the non-directional modes (e.g. Planar and DC). Thus, it is believed Kotra’s teachings suggest this feature. Nonetheless, and in the spirit of compact prosecution, the work of Ahn is relied on, where Ahn’s methods can similarly identify an unavailable neighboring block and set the intra prediction mode to be a non-directional mode such as the Planar mode or the DC mode which can be construed as a default mode (e.g. ¶0118). If a non-directional mode is set under this condition, this indicates it is a predefined/default mode. Although Ahn’s teachings refer to MPM list, which Applicant noted with respect to Li (see pg. 6 of remarks), the examiner respectfully submits the claims do not mention anything regarding not using a MPM list-based selection scheme. In light of this and given Ahn provides a means for setting the intra prediction mode to a “pre-defined mode” when the neighboring block is unavailable, Ahn’s teachings are deemed relevant. Also noteworthy is the work of Lee et al. US 2021/0281838 A1 (PTO 892). Please see for e.g. ¶0377. For these reasons, the examiner respectfully submits Kotra and Ahn, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest the disclosed features of the instant claims given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Please see office action below for details.
4. Applicant’s response and amendments with respect to the objection of claim 1 is acknowledged. As such, the objection is withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s response and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged. As such, the rejections are withdrawn.
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. Accordingly, Claims 1, 11, and 13 have been examined and are pending.
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, 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 Ahn et al. US 2021/0051334 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kotra and Ahn, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, 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]; 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 being available, the flag is signaled from a bitstream [See pg. 13 lines 19-34 and pg. 14 lines 1-8. If reconstructed coding blocks for the current block are available, DIMD can be applied via said DIMD flag (see above) to determine intra modes], wherein based on the 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 the 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 the intra prediction mode of the current block is set to a pre-defined mode [If DIMD is not performed (see above), this suggests any conventional intra mode can be used, including the planar and DC non-directional modes. Nonetheless, for direct support, please see Ahn below] Kotra’s teachings are found to be relevant for the reasons presented. Although Kotra does not explicitly refer to using a predefined mode when DIMD is not performed, this would be considered within the level of skill in the art of video coding. Nonetheless, the work of Ahn from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “and the intra prediction mode of the current block is set to a pre-defined mode [For e.g., ¶0118 of Ahn shows a neighboring block is not available when it belongs to a different CTU from a current block. When this is true, the intra prediction mode may be set to a non-directional mode (e.g. Planar or DC) which is construed to be pre-defined given its BRI] Although Ahn’s teachings do not explicitly refer to DIMD as in Kotra, they are deemed relevant, since a non-directional mode (i.e. pre-defined) can be set for an unavailable block. Thus, 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 coding techniques of Ahn as above in order to enhance coding efficiency and reduce complexity (e.g. ¶0024).
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. ¶0050 of Ahn, for example, also discloses his feature.
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 also depicted in figs. 1 and 2 of Kotra and is further indicated in for e.g. ¶0050 of Ahn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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
Prosecution Insights