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 . 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 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. There are a total of 20 claims and claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2024 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 12/29/2025 with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the new limitations added to claims 1, 8 and 15. See the rejection below of claims 1, 8 and 15 for relevant citations found in CHOI disclosing the newly added limitations.
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, 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 1,3-8,10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE (US PUB. 2021/0243429 A1) in view of CHOI et al. (2021/0281834 A1).
Regarding claim 1, LEE discloses a method comprising: determining, based on both a position of a block relative to a boundary and a property of the block, a first reference line offset and a second reference line offset that are different([see in Fig. 8 and para 0153-0154 and [0156-0157]- shown in (a) of FIG. 8, when the first non-adjacent reference sample line is determined as the reference sample line for the current block, the left reference samples for the current block may be derived based on the first non-adjacent reference sample line, while the top reference samples for the current block may be derived based on the adjacent reference sample line); wherein the property comprises at least one of a width and a height of the block([para 0138]- Based on the at least one of the position, the size, the shape of the current block or a prediction encoding mode of a neighboring block thereto, the reference sample line for the current block may be determined. In one example, when the current block adjoins a boundary of a picture, a tile, a slice or a coding tree unit, the adjacent reference sample line may be determined as the reference sample line for the current block); determining samples of a reference line based on the first reference line offset and the second reference line offset([see in Fig. 8(a)-8(b)]- shown in (a) of FIG. 8, when the first non-adjacent reference sample line is determined as the reference sample line for the current block, the left reference samples for the current block may be derived based on the first non-adjacent reference sample line, while the top reference samples for the current block may be derived based on the adjacent reference sample line and in (b) of FIG. 8, when the third non-adjacent reference sample line is determined as the reference sample line for the current block, the left reference samples for the current block may be derived based on the third non-adjacent reference sample line, while the top reference samples for the current block may be derived based on the adjacent reference sample line); and predicting the block based on the samples of the reference line and an intra prediction mode([see in Fig. 6, steps S602 and S603; par.[0264]- When an intra-prediction mode for the current block is determined, prediction samples for the current block may be obtained based on the determined intra-prediction mode S60) .
However, LEE does not explicitly disclose wherein the property comprises at least one of a width and a height of the block.
In an analogous art, CHOI discloses wherein the property comprises at least one of a width and a height of the block([para 0097;0099 and 0109]- the image decoding apparatus 100 may determine the ratio of the width and height among the block shape information of the coding unit to be at least one of 1:2, 2:1, 1:4, 4:1, 1:8, 8:1, 1:16, 16:1, 1:32, and 32:1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of CHOI to the modified system of LEE a video encoding method and apparatus and a video decoding method and apparatus, in which, when at least one reference line is used, in a case where a current block is in contact with an upper boundary of a largest coding unit including the current block, an upper reference line is determined and used as one reference line that capable of reproducing and storing high-resolution or high-definition image content, the need for a codec that effectively encodes or decodes high-resolution or high-definition image content has increased [CHOI’ abstract].
Regarding claim 3, LEE discloses wherein the first reference line offset is set to a predetermined offset value based on a top row or left column of samples of the block being directly adjacent to the boundary([see in Fig. 8(a)-8(b)]- top row of samples is directly adjacent to the boundary ), and wherein the second reference line offset is determined based on the property of the block([see in Fig. 8 and para 0153-0154 and [0156-0157]; [0165-0167];[0188-0190]-in para [0165-0167]-discloses , when the current block has a non-square shape, the reference samples located at one having a smaller length of a horizontal side (width) and a vertical side (height) of the current block may be derived based on the adjacent reference sample line; examiner considers that as property of the block).
Regarding claim 4, LEE discloses the boundary is a top boundary, the first reference line offset is a vertical reference line offset, and the second reference line offset is a horizontal reference line offset; or the boundary is a left boundary, the first reference line offset is a horizontal reference line offset, and the second reference line offset is a vertical reference line offset([see in Fig. 8(a)-8(b)- the top reference sample line is an adjacent reference sample line, which has index equal to zero, see Table 1, the left reference sample line has an index equal to intra_luma_ref_idx;].
Regarding claim 5, wherein the determining the samples of the reference line based on the first reference line offset and the second reference line offset comprises: determining a main set of samples of the reference line based on one of the first reference line offset or the second reference line offset, wherein the one of the first reference line offset or the second reference line offset is determined based on the intra prediction mode; and determining an extended set of samples of the reference line based on the first reference line offset and the second reference line offset([0141] and [0142]- which disclose determining otfsetX[i] and offsetY[i], which correspond to the number of additional samples in the top reference sample line and left adjacent sample line respectively which complete the main set of samples and Figures 12 and 13 which disclose extending reference samples by projection; while Figures 12 and 13 disclose vertical and horizontal arrangements based on adjacent reference samples).
Regarding claim 6, LEE discloses further comprising: receiving a reference line index from a bitstream, wherein at least one of the first or the second reference line off sets is determined further based on the reference line index ([0315-0317]- the wide angle intra prediction mode derived based on the wide angle replacement intra prediction mode may vary based on the index of the reference sample line for the current block. Specifically, the wide angle intra prediction mode for the current block may be derived by deriving an offset based on the index of the reference sample line).
Regarding claim 7, LEE discloses wherein the property of the block is: a size of the block; or an aspect ratio of the block([para 0137]- a candidate reference sample line specified by intra_luma_ref_idx may be variably determined based on at least one of the size, or the shape of the current block or the intra prediction mode of the current block; stmpe of tt1e current block corresponds to the aspect ratio since the block is rectangular)).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 8 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 15 have been met in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of CHOI as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Chang et al. (NPL- CE3-related: Non-zero reference lines padding method on the top-line of CTU; given by the applicant in the IDS).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of LEE and CHOI specifically LEE discloses the boundary is one of a boundary of a picture that the block is located within, a boundary of a coding tree unit that the block is located within, a boundary of a slice that the block is located within, or a boundary of a tile that the block is located within ([see in Fig. 8(a),(b), paragraph [0153]]-).
However, the combination of LEE and CHOI do not explicitly disclose the boundary is one of a top boundary or a left boundary.
In an analogous art, Chang discloses wherein the boundary is one of a top boundary or a left boundary ([Section-2, Proposed Method]- current CU is on the top line of a CTU). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the technique of Chang to the modified system of LEE and CHOI a method of a reference samples padding method in the top-line of CTU when multiple reference line intra prediction (MRL) is enabled which could retrieve some gain loss from disabling MRL of CU on the top-line of CTU without obvious encoding and decoding time increasing [Chang; abstract].
Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior arts are made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. CHOI et al., US 2021/0281834 A1, discloses method and apparatus and a video decoding method and apparatus, in which, when at least one reference line is used, in a case where a current block is in contact with an upper boundary of a largest coding unit including the current block, an upper reference line is determined and used as one reference line.
2. AHN et. al., US 2021/0051334 A1, discloses an image encoding/decoding method and apparatus for performing intra prediction.
3. PARK et al., US 2018/0139453 A1, discloses method and apparatus for processing a video signal using a recursively partitioning in a tree structure.
4. LIU et al., US 2017/0134724 A1, discloses a technique to support slice/tile-based parallel processing or wavefront parallel processing when the Intra-block copy (IntraBC) coding mode is selected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD NAZMUL HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5328. The examiner can normally be reached IFW.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 5712727327. 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.
/MD N HAQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights