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 . 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.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made in the specification and claims and enters for consideration. Claims 7, 16, 19-20 have been cancelled. New claims 21-23 have been added. Therefore, claims 1-6, 8-15, 17-18, 21-23 remain pending in the current application. The amendments are in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 09/10/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4-5, 13-14 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.
Claim 4 recites “for each group of reconstructed samples in a 3x2 sliding window that traverses the left template one row at a time across the multiple columns of samples,”. It is not clear whether “the multiple columns of samples” refer to the previously recited “group of reconstructed samples” or not. If not, then “the multiple columns of samples” create an antecedent basis. This has created an indefiniteness in interpreting the full scope of the claim(s). Similar issue also exists in claims 5, 13-14.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 17-18, 21, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippov et al. (US PGPub 2023/0217016 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPub 2019/0281290 A1).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. teach an apparatus for video decoding (Fig. 1, reference numeral 120; [0047]), comprising:
processing circuitry ([0220]) configured to:
receive coded information indicating that a current block in a current picture is coded with a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) method (Fig. 19; [0159]-[0160]; it teaches that the decoder 300 of Fig. 3 receives a bitstream from the encoder 200 of Fig. 2 and derive an intra prediction mode for a current block 1902 being coded using DIMD), a template of the current block being adjacent to the current block and including reconstructed samples in the current picture (Fig. 19; [0135]; It teaches that DIMD may utilize reconstructed reference samples above a current block being coded. For example, DIMD may use three lines of reconstructed reference samples above a current block being coded to derive an intra prediction mode for the current block);
determine a filter type from a plurality of filter types associated with the template based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0160]-[0162]; Figs. 19, 22 show 3x3 sobel filter type used for the left and the top templates);
apply the DIMD method to the reconstructed samples in the template based on the determined filter type to determine one or more intra prediction modes for the current block ([0160]-[0162]; [0134]-[0135]; It teaches that DIMD may be used for deriving an intra prediction mode at both the encoder and decoder); and
reconstruct the current block according to the one or more intra prediction modes ([0135]; it teaches that DIMD may use different numbers/quantities of reconstructed samples as templates for deriving one or more intra prediction modes).
Although, Filippov et al. in [0215], L79-88, teach that the length of the template may correspond to four lines based on a size of the current block being 16×16 samples or larger and length of a left template of the current block may correspond to four lines based on a width of the current block being 16 samples or larger, but it does not teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block.
However, Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0225]), teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0359], [0880], [0905]; it teaches that the type of filter to be applied to at least one of a reference sample and a prediction sample may differ depending on at least one of the intra-prediction mode of a target block, the size of the target block, and the shape of the target block).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement to include Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, because such filtering may be included in a process for intra prediction, and may be performed as one of steps of intra prediction, thereby reducing number of steps (Lee et al.; [0904]).
Regarding claim 2 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the template is a left template to the left of the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show the left and top templates);
the plurality of filter types includes a 3x3 Sobel filter and a 3x2 Sobel-based filter (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; It teaches 3x3, 3x2 and 2x3 sobel filters), the 3x2 Sobel-based filter includes a horizontal filter Mlx and a vertical filter Mly (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; Even though, Eqns. 19, 20 show 3x3 sobel filters, but it also says the matrices of 19 and 20 may be replaced with 3×2 matrices for the 3×3 window of samples 1906 centered on a sample in the column of the template 1904 immediately to the left of the current block 1902. The 3x2 filter has a horizontal filter and a vertical filter as evident from 19 and 20), a middle row in Mlx is [0, 0], a sum of each column in Mlx is 0, and a sum of each row in Mly is 0 (Filippov et al.; Fig. 19; [0160]-[0162]; When the 3x3 filters of 19, 20 are replaced with 3x2 filters, Mlx becomes
-
1
-
2
0
0
1
2
, where middle row in Mlx is [0, 0] and sum of each column in Mlx is 0. Also Mly becomes
1
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
1
, where sum of each row is 0); and
the processing circuitry is configured to determine the filter type as one of the 3x3 Sobel filter and the 3x2 Sobel-based filter based on the one of the block size of the current block and the block shape of the current block (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]).
Although, Filippov et al. in [0215], L79-88, teach that the length of the template may correspond to four lines based on a size of the current block being 16×16 samples or larger and length of a left template of the current block may correspond to four lines based on a width of the current block being 16 samples or larger, but it does not teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block.
However, Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0225]), teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0359], [0880], [0905]; it teaches that the type of filter to be applied to at least one of a reference sample and a prediction sample may differ depending on at least one of the intra-prediction mode of a target block, the size of the target block, and the shape of the target block).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement to include Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, because such filtering may be included in a process for intra prediction, and may be performed as one of steps of intra prediction, thereby reducing number of steps (Lee et al.; [0904]).
Regarding claim 3 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the template is a top template above the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show the top and left templates);
the plurality of filter types includes a 3x3 Sobel filter and a 2x3 Sobel-based filter (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; It teaches 3x3, 3x2 and 2x3 sobel filters), the 2x3 Sobel-based filter includes a horizontal filter Mtx and a vertical filter Mty (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; Even though, Eqns. 19, 20 show 3x3 sobel filters, but it also says the matrices of 19 and 20 may be replaced with 2×3 matrices for the 3×3 window of samples 1906 centered on a sample in the row of the template 1904 immediately above the current block 1902. The 2x3 filter has a horizontal filter and a vertical filter as evident from 19 and 20), a middle column in Mty is
0
0
, a sum of each row in Mty is 0, and a sum of each column in Mtx is 0 (Filippov et al.; Fig. 19; [0160]-[0162]; When the 3x3 filters of 19, 20 are replaced with 2x3 filters, Mtx becomes
-
1
-
2
-
1
1
2
1
and Mty becomes
1
0
-
1
2
0
-
2
, where middle column in Mty is
0
0
and sum of each row in Mty is 0. Also sum of each column in Mtx is 0); and
the processing circuitry is configured to determine the filter type as one of the 3x3 Sobel filter and the 2x3 Sobel-based filter based on the one of the block size of the current block and the block shape of the current block (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]).
Although, Filippov et al. in [0215], L79-88, teach that the length of the template may correspond to four lines based on a size of the current block being 16×16 samples or larger and length of a left template of the current block may correspond to four lines based on a width of the current block being 16 samples or larger, but it does not teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block.
However, Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0225]), teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0359], [0880], [0905]; it teaches that the type of filter to be applied to at least one of a reference sample and a prediction sample may differ depending on at least one of the intra-prediction mode of a target block, the size of the target block, and the shape of the target block).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement to include Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, because such filtering may be included in a process for intra prediction, and may be performed as one of steps of intra prediction, thereby reducing number of steps (Lee et al.; [0904]).
Regarding claim 6 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the template includes (i) a top template that includes the reconstructed samples that are directly above the current block and the reconstructed samples that are above and to the right of the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17, 18, reference numerals 1704B, 1704A; Fig. 22, reference numerals 2204B, 2204A. [0143]-[0144]; It teaches that the encoder and/or the decoder may generate a prediction of the top template 1704B from the reference line 1706 in a same or similar manner as the reference samples 902 were used to generate a prediction of the current block 904 as described with respect to Fig. 11, where the above templates include both directly above and to the right of the current block), and (ii) a left template that includes the reconstructed samples that are directly to the left of the current block and the reconstructed samples that are below and to the left of the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17, 18, reference numerals 1704B, 1704A; Fig. 22, reference numerals 2204B, 2204A. [0143]-[0144]; It teaches that the encoder and/or the decoder may generate a prediction of the left template 1704A from the reference line 1706 in a same or similar manner as the reference samples 902 were used to generate a prediction of the current block 904 as described with respect to Fig. 11, where the left templates include both directly left and below of the current block).
Regarding claim 9 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. teach a method for video encoding (Fig. 1, reference numeral 114; [0041]), comprising:
determining a filter type from a plurality of filter types associated with a template of a current block based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0160]-[0162]; Figs. 19, 22 show 3x3 sobel filter type used for the left and the top templates), the current block in a current picture being coded with a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) method (Fig. 19; [0159]-[0160]; it teaches that the encoder 200 of Fig. 2 generates a bitstream by encoding a current block 1902 using DIMD by applying an intra prediction mode), the template of the current block including reconstructed samples in the current picture and being adjacent to the current block (Fig. 19; [0135]; It teaches that DIMD may utilize reconstructed reference samples above a current block being coded. For example, DIMD may use three lines of reconstructed reference samples above a current block being coded to derive an intra prediction mode for the current block);
applying the DIMD method to the reconstructed samples in the template based on the determined filter type to determine one or more intra prediction modes for the current block ([0160]-[0162]; [0134]-[0135]; It teaches that DIMD may be used for deriving an intra prediction mode at both the encoder and decoder); and
encoding the current block according to the one or more intra prediction modes ([0134]-[0135]; It teaches that a selected intra prediction mode may be derived at both the encoder and decoder using previously encoded/decoded samples. Different intra mode derivation algorithms may use different numbers/quantities of reconstructed samples as templates for deriving one or more intra prediction modes. Fig. 17; [0147]; It teaches that the encoder may compare a rate-distortion (RD) cost of the encoding current block 1702 with the TIMD intra prediction mode and other intra prediction modes and may select an appropriate intra prediction mode to encode the current block 1702. It also teaches that based on the encoder selecting the TIMD intra prediction mode to encode the current block 1702, the encoder may signal a TIMD flag (read syntax element) indicating that the TIMD intra prediction mode as the intra prediction mode used to encode the current block 1702. Here the other intra prediction mode means DIMD intra prediction mode as evident from [0134]).
Although, Filippov et al. in [0215], L79-88, teach that the length of the template may correspond to four lines based on a size of the current block being 16×16 samples or larger and length of a left template of the current block may correspond to four lines based on a width of the current block being 16 samples or larger, but it does not teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block.
However, Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0225]), teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0359], [0880], [0905]; it teaches that the type of filter to be applied to at least one of a reference sample and a prediction sample may differ depending on at least one of the intra-prediction mode of a target block, the size of the target block, and the shape of the target block).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement to include Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, because such filtering may be included in a process for intra prediction, and may be performed as one of steps of intra prediction, thereby reducing number of steps (Lee et al.; [0904]).
Regarding claim 10 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the method of claim 9, wherein
the template is a left template to the left of the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show the left and top templates),
the plurality of filter types include a 3x3 Sobel filter and a 3x2 Sobel-based filter (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; It teaches 3x3, 3x2 and 2x3 sobel filters), the 3x2 Sobel-based filter indicates a horizontal filter Mlx and a vertical filter Mly (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; Even though, Eqns. 19, 20 show 3x3 sobel filters, but it also says the matrices of 19 and 20 may be replaced with 3×2 matrices for the 3×3 window of samples 1906 centered on a sample in the column of the template 1904 immediately to the left of the current block 1902. The 3x2 filter has a horizontal filter and a vertical filter as evident from 19 and 20), a middle row in Mlx is [0, 0], a sum of each column in Mlx is 0, and a sum of each row in Mly is 0 (Filippov et al.; Fig. 19; [0160]-[0162]; When the 3x3 filters of 19, 20 are replaced with 3x2 filters, Mlx becomes
-
1
-
2
0
0
1
2
, where middle row in Mlx is [0, 0] and sum of each column in Mlx is 0. Also Mly becomes
1
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
1
, where sum of each row is 0), and
the determining the filter type includes determining the filter type as one of the 3X3 Sobel filter and the 3X2 Sobel-based filter based on the one of the block size of the current block and the block shape of the current block (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]).
Although, Filippov et al. in [0215], L79-88, teach that the length of the template may correspond to four lines based on a size of the current block being 16×16 samples or larger and length of a left template of the current block may correspond to four lines based on a width of the current block being 16 samples or larger, but it does not teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block.
However, Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0225]), teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0359], [0880], [0905]; it teaches that the type of filter to be applied to at least one of a reference sample and a prediction sample may differ depending on at least one of the intra-prediction mode of a target block, the size of the target block, and the shape of the target block).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement to include Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, because such filtering may be included in a process for intra prediction, and may be performed as one of steps of intra prediction, thereby reducing number of steps (Lee et al.; [0904]).
Regarding claim 11 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the method of claim 9, wherein
the template is a top template above the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show the top and left templates),
the plurality of filter types include a 3x3 Sobel filter and a 2x3 Sobel-based filter (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; It teaches 3x3, 3x2 and 2x3 sobel filters), the 2x3 Sobel-based filter indicates a horizontal filter Mtx and a vertical filter Mty (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; Even though, Eqns. 19, 20 show 3x3 sobel filters, but it also says the matrices of 19 and 20 may be replaced with 2×3 matrices for the 3×3 window of samples 1906 centered on a sample in the row of the template 1904 immediately above the current block 1902. The 2x3 filter has a horizontal filter and a vertical filter as evident from 19 and 20), a middle column in Mty is
0
0
, a sum of each row in Mty is 0, and a sum of each column in Mtx is 0 (Filippov et al.; Fig. 19; [0160]-[0162]; When the 3x3 filters of 19, 20 are replaced with 2x3 filters, Mtx becomes
-
1
-
2
-
1
1
2
1
and Mty becomes
1
0
-
1
2
0
-
2
, where middle column in Mty is
0
0
and sum of each row in Mty is 0. Also sum of each column in Mtx is 0), and
the determining the filter type includes determining the filter type as one of the 3X3 Sobel filter and the 2X3 Sobel-based filter based on the one of the block size of the current block and the block shape of the current block (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]).
Although, Filippov et al. in [0215], L79-88, teach that the length of the template may correspond to four lines based on a size of the current block being 16×16 samples or larger and length of a left template of the current block may correspond to four lines based on a width of the current block being 16 samples or larger, but it does not teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block.
However, Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0225]), teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0359], [0880], [0905]; it teaches that the type of filter to be applied to at least one of a reference sample and a prediction sample may differ depending on at least one of the intra-prediction mode of a target block, the size of the target block, and the shape of the target block).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement to include Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, because such filtering may be included in a process for intra prediction, and may be performed as one of steps of intra prediction, thereby reducing number of steps (Lee et al.; [0904]).
Regarding claim 12 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the method of claim 9, wherein the template includes (i) a top template that includes the reconstructed samples that are directly above the current block and the reconstructed samples that are above and to the right of the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17, 18, reference numerals 1704B, 1704A; Fig. 22, reference numerals 2204B, 2204A. [0143]-[0144]; It teaches that the encoder and/or the decoder may generate a prediction of the top template 1704B from the reference line 1706 in a same or similar manner as the reference samples 902 were used to generate a prediction of the current block 904 as described with respect to Fig. 11, where the above templates include both directly above and to the right of the current block), and (ii) a left template that includes the reconstructed samples that are directly to the left of the current block and the reconstructed samples that are below and to the left of the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17, 18, reference numerals 1704B, 1704A; Fig. 22, reference numerals 2204B, 2204A. [0143]-[0144]; It teaches that the encoder and/or the decoder may generate a prediction of the left template 1704A from the reference line 1706 in a same or similar manner as the reference samples 902 were used to generate a prediction of the current block 904 as described with respect to Fig. 11, where the left templates include both directly left and below of the current block).
Regarding claim 17 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the method of claim 21, wherein
the template is a left template to the left of the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show the left and top templates);
the plurality of filter types includes a 3x3 Sobel filter and a 3x2 Sobel-based filter (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; It teaches 3x3, 3x2 and 2x3 sobel filters), the 3x2 Sobel-based filter includes a horizontal filter Mlx and a vertical filter Mly (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; Even though, Eqns. 19, 20 show 3x3 sobel filters, but it also says the matrices of 19 and 20 may be replaced with 3×2 matrices for the 3×3 window of samples 1906 centered on a sample in the column of the template 1904 immediately to the left of the current block 1902. The 3x2 filter has a horizontal filter and a vertical filter as evident from 19 and 20), a middle row in Mlx is [0, 0], a sum of each column in Mlx is 0, and a sum of each row in Mly is 0 (Filippov et al.; Fig. 19; [0160] [0162]; When the 3x3 filters of 19, 20 are replaced with 3x2 filters, Mlx becomes
-
1
-
2
0
0
1
2
, where middle row in Mlx is [0, 0] and sum of each column in Mlx is 0. Also Mly becomes
1
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
1
, where sum of each row is 0); and
the filter type is determined as one of the 3x3 Sobel filter and the 3x2 Sobel-based filter based on the one of the block size of the current block and the block shape of the current block (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]).
Although, Filippov et al. in [0215], L79-88, teach that the length of the template may correspond to four lines based on a size of the current block being 16×16 samples or larger and length of a left template of the current block may correspond to four lines based on a width of the current block being 16 samples or larger, but it does not teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block.
However, Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0225]), teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0359], [0880], [0905]; it teaches that the type of filter to be applied to at least one of a reference sample and a prediction sample may differ depending on at least one of the intra-prediction mode of a target block, the size of the target block, and the shape of the target block).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement to include Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, because such filtering may be included in a process for intra prediction, and may be performed as one of steps of intra prediction, thereby reducing number of steps (Lee et al.; [0904]).
Regarding claim 18 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the method of claim 21, wherein
the template is a top template above the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show the top and left templates);
the plurality of filter types includes a 3x3 Sobel filter and a 2x3 Sobel-based filter (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; It teaches 3x3, 3x2 and 2x3 sobel filters), the 2x3 Sobel-based filter includes a horizontal filter Mtx and a vertical filter Mty (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; Even though, Eqns. 19, 20 show 3x3 sobel filters, but it also says the matrices of 19 and 20 may be replaced with 2×3 matrices for the 3×3 window of samples 1906 centered on a sample in the row of the template 1904 immediately above the current block 1902. The 2x3 filter has a horizontal filter and a vertical filter as evident from 19 and 20), a middle column in Mty is
0
0
, a sum of each row in Mty is 0, and a sum of each column in Mtx is 0 (Filippov et al.; Fig. 19; [0160]-[0162]; When the 3x3 filters of 19, 20 are replaced with 2x3 filters, Mtx becomes
-
1
-
2
-
1
1
2
1
and Mty becomes
1
0
-
1
2
0
-
2
, where middle column in Mty is
0
0
and sum of each row in Mty is 0. Also sum of each column in Mtx is 0); and
the filter type is determined as one of the 3x3 Sobel filter and the 2x3 Sobel-based filter based on the one of the block size of the current block and the block shape of the current block (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]).
Although, Filippov et al. in [0215], L79-88, teach that the length of the template may correspond to four lines based on a size of the current block being 16×16 samples or larger and length of a left template of the current block may correspond to four lines based on a width of the current block being 16 samples or larger, but it does not teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block.
However, Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0225]), teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0359], [0880], [0905]; it teaches that the type of filter to be applied to at least one of a reference sample and a prediction sample may differ depending on at least one of the intra-prediction mode of a target block, the size of the target block, and the shape of the target block).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement to include Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, because such filtering may be included in a process for intra prediction, and may be performed as one of steps of intra prediction, thereby reducing number of steps (Lee et al.; [0904]).
Regarding claim 21 (New), Filippov et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor (Fig. 27; [0221]) cause the processor to perform a method of encoding a bitstream comprising:
determining a filter type from a plurality of filter types associated with a template of a current block based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0160]-[0162]; Figs. 19, 22 show 3x3 sobel filter type used for the left and the top templates), the current block in a current picture being coded with a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) method (Fig. 19; [0159]-[0160]; it teaches that the decoder 300 of Fig. 3 receives a bitstream from the encoder 200 of Fig. 2 and derive an intra prediction mode for a current block 1902 being coded using DIMD), the template of the current block including reconstructed samples in the current picture and being adjacent to the current block (Fig. 19; [0135]; It teaches that DIMD may utilize reconstructed reference samples above a current block being coded. For example, DIMD may use three lines of reconstructed reference samples above a current block being coded to derive an intra prediction mode for the current block);
applying the DIMD method to the reconstructed samples in the template based on the determined filter type to determine one or more intra prediction modes for the current block ([0160]-[0162]; [0134]-[0135]; It teaches that DIMD may be used for deriving an intra prediction mode at both the encoder and decoder);
encoding, in the bitstream, the current block according to the one or more intra prediction modes (Fig. 1; reference numeral 114; [0135]; it teaches that DIMD may use different numbers/quantities of reconstructed samples as templates for deriving one or more intra prediction modes); and
transmitting the bitstream (Fig. 1, reference numeral 104).
Although, Filippov et al. in [0215], L79-88, teach that the length of the template may correspond to four lines based on a size of the current block being 16×16 samples or larger and length of a left template of the current block may correspond to four lines based on a width of the current block being 16 samples or larger, but it does not teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block.
However, Lee et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0225]), teach determining a filter type based on one of a block size of the current block and a block shape of the current block ([0359], [0880], [0905]; it teaches that the type of filter to be applied to at least one of a reference sample and a prediction sample may differ depending on at least one of the intra-prediction mode of a target block, the size of the target block, and the shape of the target block).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement to include Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, because such filtering may be included in a process for intra prediction, and may be performed as one of steps of intra prediction, thereby reducing number of steps (Lee et al.; [0904]).
Regarding claim 23 (New), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of a width and a height of the filter type is 2 (Filippov et al.; [0096]; it teaches a two-tap filter which has the width or height of 2).
Claim 4-5, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippov et al. (US PGPub 2023/0217016 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPub 2019/0281290 A1).
Regarding claim 4 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the template is a left template to the left of the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show the top and left templates) and includes multiple columns of reconstructed samples (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show multiple columns of reconstructed sample at the left of the current block);
the filter type is a 3x2 Sobel-based filter in the plurality of filter types (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; It teaches 3x3, 3x2 and 2x3 sobel filters);
the 3x2 Sobel-based filter includes a horizontal filter Mlx that is
-
1
-
3
0
0
1
3
and a vertical filter Mly that is
1
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
1
(Filippov et al.; Fig. 19; [0160]-[0162]; When the 3x3 filters of 19, 20 are replaced with 3x2 filters, Mlx becomes horizontal filter
-
1
-
2
0
0
1
2
, and Mly becomes vertical filter
1
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
1
); and
for each group of reconstructed samples in a 3x2 sliding window that traverses the left template one row at a time across the multiple columns of samples, the processing circuitry is configured to apply Mlx and Mly to the respective group of reconstructed samples in the 3x2 sliding window to determine an intra prediction mode associated with the respective group of reconstructed samples in the sliding window and determine the one or more intra prediction modes of the current block based on the determined intra prediction modes associated with the respective groups of reconstructed samples in the left template (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]).
Even though Filippov et al., in [0160], Eqns. 19, 20, show that Mlx has second column consisting of number “-2” and “2” instead of “-3” and “3”, but in [0161], it says “in some implementations, a different gradient filter and/or a different window may be used”, which means numbers “-2” and “2” in the Mlx sobel filter matrix could as well be “-3” and “3” respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the desired filtering results with sobel matrix Mlx having second column consisting of number “-2” and “2” instead of “-3” and “3”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values of the filtering matrix involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the template is a top template above the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show the left and top templates) and includes multiple rows of reconstructed samples (Figs. 17-19 show multiple rows of reconstructed sample at the top of the current block);
the filter type is a 2x3 Sobel-based filter in the plurality of filter types (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; It teaches 3x3, 3x2 and 2x3 sobel filters);
the 2x3 Sobel-based filter includes that a horizontal filter Mtx that is
-
1
-
2
-
1
1
2
1
and a vertical filter Mty that is
1
0
-
1
3
0
-
3
(Filippov et al.; Fig. 19; [0160]-[0162]; When the 3x3 filters of 19, 20 are replaced with 2x3 filters, Mtx becomes horizontal filter
-
1
-
2
-
1
1
2
1
and Mty becomes vertical filter
1
0
-
1
2
0
-
2
); and
for each group of reconstructed samples in a 2x3 sliding window that traverses the top template one column at a time across the multiple rows of samples, the processing circuitry is configured to apply Mtx and Mty to the respective group of reconstructed samples in the 2x3 sliding window to determine an intra prediction mode associated with the respective group of reconstructed samples in the sliding window and determine the one or more intra prediction modes of the current block based on the determined intra prediction modes associated with the respective groups of reconstructed samples in the top template (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]).
Even though Filippov et al., in [0160], Eqns. 19, 20, show that Mty has second row consisting of number “2” and “-2” instead of “3” and “-3”, but in [0161], it says “in some implementations, a different gradient filter and/or a different window may be used”, which means numbers “2” and “-2” in the Mty sobel filter matrix could as well be “3” and “-3” respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the desired filtering results with sobel matrix Mty having second row consisting of number “2” and “-2” instead of “3” and “-3”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values of the filtering matrix involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 14 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the method of claim 9, wherein
the template is a left template to the left of the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show the top and left templates) and includes multiple columns of samples (Figs. 17-19 show multiple columns of reconstructed sample at the left of the current block);
the filter type is a 3x2 Sobel-based filter in the plurality of filter types (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; It teaches 3x3, 3x2 and 2x3 sobel filters);
the 3x2 Sobel-based filter includes a horizontal filter Mlx that is
-
1
-
3
0
0
1
3
and a vertical filter Mly that is
1
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
1
(Filippov et al.; Fig. 19; [0160]-[0162]; When the 3x3 filters of 19, 20 are replaced with 3x2 filters, Mlx becomes horizontal filter
-
1
-
2
0
0
1
2
, and Mly becomes vertical filter
1
-
1
2
-
2
1
-
1
); and
the applying the DIMD method includes, for each group of reconstructed samples in a 3x2 sliding window that traverses the left template one row at a time across the multiple columns of samples, applying Mlx and Mly to the respective group of reconstructed samples in the 3x2 sliding window to determine an intra prediction mode associated with the respective group of reconstructed samples in the sliding window and determine the one or more intra prediction modes of the current block based on the determined intra prediction modes associated with the respective groups of reconstructed samples in the left template (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]).
Even though Filippov et al., in [0160], Eqns. 19, 20, show that Mlx has second column consisting of number “-2” and “2” instead of “-3” and “3”, but in [0161], it says “in some implementations, a different gradient filter and/or a different window may be used”, which means numbers “-2” and “2” in the Mlx sobel filter matrix could as well be “-3” and “3” respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the desired filtering results with sobel matrix Mlx having second column consisting of number “-2” and “2” instead of “-3” and “3”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values of the filtering matrix involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the method of claim 9, wherein
the template is a top template above the current block (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show the left and top templates) and includes multiple rows of samples (Filippov et al.; Figs. 17-19 show multiple rows of reconstructed sample at the top of the current block);
the filter type is a 2x3 Sobel-based filter in the plurality of filter types (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; It teaches 3x3, 3x2 and 2x3 sobel filters);
the 2x3 Sobel-based filter includes that a horizontal filter Mtx that is
-
1
-
2
-
1
1
2
1
and a vertical filter Mty that is
1
0
-
1
3
0
-
3
(Filippov et al.; Fig. 19; [0160]-[0162]; When the 3x3 filters of 19, 20 are replaced with 2x3 filters, Mtx becomes horizontal filter
-
1
-
2
-
1
1
2
1
and Mty becomes vertical filter
1
0
-
1
2
0
-
2
. Even though Mty has second row consisting of number “2” and “-2” instead of “3” and “-3”, but in [0161], it says “in some implementations, a different gradient filter and/or a different window may be used”, which means numbers “2” and “-2” in the Mty sobel filter matrix can be “3” and “-3” respectively) and
the applying the DIMD method includes, for each group of reconstructed samples in a 2x3 sliding window that traverses the top template one column at a time across the multiple rows of samples, applying Mtx and Mty to the respective group of reconstructed samples in the 2x3 sliding window to determine an intra prediction mode associated with the respective group of reconstructed samples in the sliding window and determine the one or more intra prediction modes of the current block based on the determined intra prediction modes associated with the respective groups of reconstructed samples in the top template (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]).
Even though Filippov et al., in [0160], Eqns. 19, 20, show that Mty has second row consisting of number “2” and “-2” instead of “3” and “-3”, but in [0161], it says “in some implementations, a different gradient filter and/or a different window may be used”, which means numbers “2” and “-2” in the Mty sobel filter matrix could as well be “3” and “-3” respectively.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the desired filtering results with sobel matrix Mty having second row consisting of number “2” and “-2” instead of “3” and “-3”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values of the filtering matrix involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 8, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippov et al. (US PGPub 2023/0217016 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US PGPub 2019/0281290 A1) and further in view of Park et al. (WO 2025/009773 A1) (See attached document WO2025009773A1.pdf).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the template includes four adjacent lines of the reconstructed samples;
for each of two middle lines of the four adjacent lines of the reconstructed samples,
the processing circuitry is configured to apply a filter type to each group of reconstructed samples in a sliding window (Filippov et al.; [0162]-[0163]; Fig. 19, reference numeral 1906 and Fig. 22, reference numeral 2210 shows the sliding window) to determine an intra prediction mode associated with the group of reconstructed samples in the sliding window that traverses the middle line one sample at a time (Filippov et al.; Fig. 19, 22 sliding window shows the traversal of the window centered around the middle line); and
the processing circuitry is configured to determine the one or more intra prediction modes of the current block from the determined intra prediction modes associated with the respective groups of reconstructed samples in the template (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; [0134]-[0135]; It teaches that DIMD may be used for deriving an intra prediction mode at both the encoder and decoder).
Although, Filippov et al. teach a sliding window size of 3x3 as shown in Figs. 19, 22, and in [0161], it teaches that a different gradient filter and/or a different window may be used, but it does not explicitly teach a template that includes four adjacent lines of the samples with the sliding window. Even though, Lee et al. show in Fig. 26, four adjacent lines to the current block, but it does not teach four adjacent lines of the samples with the sliding window.
However, Park et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0007], [0009]), teach a DIMD encoding/decoding scheme where it teaches a template that includes four adjacent lines of the samples and corresponding sliding windows 2320 and 2330 (Park et al., Fig. 23).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement and Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, to include Park et al's usage of a template that includes four adjacent lines of the samples, because it can apply a strong filter to a template region of DIMD to emphasize an edge component of the current block to determine a gradient to obtain a histogram value (Park et al.; P19, [0056], L9-12).
Regarding claim 13 (Currently Amended), Filippov et al. and Lee et al. teach the method of claim 9, wherein
the template includes four adjacent lines of the reconstructed samples (Lee et al.; Fig. 26); and
the applying the DIMD method includes
for each of two middle lines of the four adjacent lines of the reconstructed samples, applying a filter type to each group of samples in a sliding window (Filippov et al.; [0162]-[0163]; Fig. 19, reference numeral 1906 and Fig. 22, reference numeral 2210 shows the sliding window) to determine an intra prediction mode associated with the group of reconstructed samples in the sliding window that traverses the middle line one sample at a time (Filippov et al.; Fig. 19, 22 sliding window shows the traversal of the window centered around the middle line); and
determining the one or more intra prediction modes from the intra prediction modes associated with the respective groups of reconstructed samples in the template (Filippov et al.; [0160]-[0162]; [0134]-[0135]; It teaches that DIMD may be used for deriving an intra prediction mode at both the encoder and decoder).
Although, Filippov et al. teach a sliding window size of 3x3 as shown in Figs. 19, 22, and in [0161], it teaches that a different gradient filter and/or a different window may be used, but it does not explicitly teach a template that includes four adjacent lines of the samples with the sliding window. Even though, Lee et al. show in Fig. 26, four adjacent lines to the current block, but it does not teach four adjacent lines of the samples with the sliding window.
However, Park et al., in the same field of endeavor ([0007], [0009]), teach a DIMD encoding/decoding scheme where it teaches a template that includes four adjacent lines of the samples and corresponding sliding windows 2320 and 2330 (Park et al., Fig. 23).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Filippov et al’s invention of video compression using boundary based template refinement and Lee et al's usage of filter type selection based on block size or shape, to include Park et al's usage of a template that includes four adjacent lines of the samples, because it can apply a strong filter to a template region of DIMD to emphasize an edge component of the current block to determine a gradient to obtain a histogram value (Park et al.; P19, [0056], L9-12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 22 recites “determine the one or more intra prediction modes for the current block based on frequencies of the determined intra prediction modes associated with the respective groups of the reconstructed samples in the template”. None of the references teach the determination of the prediction modes based on the frequencies of the determined intra prediction modes associated with the respective groups of the reconstructed samples in the template. Therefore, if all the independent claims are rewritten with the inclusions of the objected claim and any intervening claims, then the case will be allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“METHOD, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM FOR VIDEO PROCESSING” – Wang et al., US PGPub 2024/0137529 A1.
“USAGE OF TEMPLATES FOR DECODER-SIDE INTRA MODE DERIVATION” – Wang et al., US PGPub 2022/0224915 A1.
“DECODER SIDE INTRA MODE DERIVATION FOR MOST PROBABLE MODE LIST CONSTRUCTION IN VIDEO CODING” – Li et al., US PGPub 2022/0201281 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAINUL HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0422. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 10AM-6PM, Alternate FRIDAYS, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAY PATEL can be reached on (571)272-2988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mainul Hasan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485