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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/2/2026 has been entered.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is broad enough to contain transitory signals; amending the claim to recite a “non-transitory” computer-readable medium can overcome this rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) in view of Jun (US PG Publication 2020/0366900).
Regarding Claim 1, Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) discloses a method of decoding an image (JVET intra prediction, Title), the method comprising:
calculating a cost (calculate cost [0095], Fig. 12 step 1208) for each of a plurality of sets (for an intra prediction mode and a reference line [0095], Fig. 12 step 1206), each set comprising an intra prediction mode (intra prediction mode [0095]-[0096], Fig. 12 steps 1206-1212) candidate (for some or all JVET intra prediction modes [0096]) and a reference sample line (reference line [0095], [0097], Fig. 12 steps 1206-1212, Figs. 13-14) candidate (repeated for each reference line [0097], Fig. 12 steps 1206-1212; the different CU templates 800 can be defined for the same decoding position based on different reference lines 1300 [0091], Fig. 13);
determining an optimal set (candidate prediction template 900 that best matched one of the actual CU templates 800 [0100]-[0101], Fig. 12 step 1214) of an intra prediction mode candidate (for some or all JVET intra prediction modes [0096]) and a reference sample line candidate (repeated for each reference line [0097], Fig. 12 steps 1206-1212) for a current block (CU 626 with intra prediction [0101]; decoding position [0090], Fig. 13);
and, based on the optimal set of the intra prediction mode candidate and the reference sample line candidate (use the intra prediction mode selected during step 1214 [0101], Fig. 12 step 1216; candidate prediction template 900 that best matched one of the actual CU templates 800 [0100], Fig. 12 step 1214), performing an intra prediction (generate a prediction CU 626 with intra prediction [0101]) on the current block (decoding position [0090], Fig. 13),
wherein a cost of each of the sets is calculated based on a difference (SAD, SSD, SATD, RDO [0095]) between prediction samples (candidate prediction template 900 from the pixels of the search window 804 using one of the 67 JVET intra prediction modes [0094]) and reconstruction samples in a template (template 800 based on a particular reference line 1300 [0091], Fig. 13) of the current block (decoding position [0090], Fig. 13), the prediction samples in the template being obtained by performing intra prediction (candidate prediction template 900 being generated with pixel values derived from pixel values of search window 804b associated with reference line 1300b according to a directional intra prediction mode [0094]), based on an intra prediction mode candidate (candidate template using one of the 67 JVET intra prediction modes [0094]) and a reference sample line candidate (template 800 based on a particular reference line 1300 [0091], Fig. 13; candidate templates 900 based on the candidate intra prediction mode and candidate reference line [0094]-[0099], Fig. 12) comprised in a corresponding set (set of all 67 JVET intra modes and all reference lines, candidate templates 900 based on the candidate intra prediction mode and candidate reference line [0094]-[0099], Fig. 12);
a predefined number (e.g., 1, the lowest) of sets (intra mode and reference line intra prediction mode and candidate reference line [0094]-[0099], Fig. 12) having the lowest costs (best matched one [0100]) among the plurality of sets (set of all 67 JVET intra modes and all reference lines, [0094]-[0099], Fig. 12);
and wherein the optimal set (select the intra prediction mode that generated the candidate prediction template 900 that best matched one of the actual CU templates 800 [0100]; can use the intra prediction mode selected during step 1214 to generate a prediction CU 626 with intra prediction [0101]) is selected from the candidate prediction list (et of all 67 JVET intra modes and all reference lines, candidate templates 900 based on the candidate intra prediction mode and candidate reference line [0094]-[0099], Fig. 12).
Panusopone does not disclose, but Jun (US PG Publication 2020/0366900) teaches wherein a candidate prediction list (M intermediate prediction blocks [0517]) for the current block (current block Fig. 11, [0508]) is constructed to include a predefined number (a number M between greater than 1 and less than 7 [0517]) … having the lowest costs (M intra prediction blocks in order of increasing SAD/SATD defined as intermediate intra-prediction blocks [0517]) among the plurality (each intra mode included in the MPM list [0516]) ….
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to select the intra modes of Panusopone for template matching from an MPM list, as in Jun, to reduce the computational cost of arriving at the best template while maintaining the random access, error robustness, and coding efficiency of intra mode coding [0005]-[0007], and to apply the luma intra prediction modes to the chroma block because corresponding luma and chroma blocks represent the same part of the scene and are expected to relate to neighboring blocks similarly, and Jun suggests that treating them the same is expected enhance compression efficiency [0006].
Regarding Claim 2, Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) discloses the method of claim 1.
Panusopone does not disclose, but Jun (US PG Publication 2020/0366900) teaches wherein only a predefined number of intra prediction modes selected from a plurality of intra prediction modes pre-defined in a decoding device are set as candidate intra prediction modes, and wherein the intra prediction modes candidates include MPMs (Most Probable Modes) derived for the current block (M intermediate blocks are selected from MPM [0517]; MPM is the candidate list [0513]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to select the intra modes of Panusopone for template matching from an MPM list, as in Jun, to reduce the computational cost of arriving at the best template while maintaining the random access, error robustness, and coding efficiency of intra mode coding [0005]-[0007], and to apply the luma intra prediction modes to the chroma block because corresponding luma and chroma blocks represent the same part of the scene and are expected to relate to neighboring blocks similarly, and Jun suggests that treating them the same is expected enhance compression efficiency [0006].
Regarding Claim 3, Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the template is composed of a top reconstrued region adjacent to the current block (template’s row [0091], Fig. 13) and a left reconstrued region adjacent to the current block (template’s column [0091], Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, Panusopone discloses a computer readable medium that stores a bitstream (output of the encoding information by the general processor may be stored in a buffer, such as output buffer 1926 [0119]). The remainder of Claim 15 has not patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 6/2/2026 have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant highlights that the claims recite a two-step selection process. Costs are assessed for “a plurality of sets” then a “candidate prediction list” is constructed using the sets selected according to cost. Remarks at 10. Applicant argues that Panusopone selects only one set with the lowest cost as the mode, but does not generate a candidate list. Remarks at 10-11. Applicant argues that Jun reorders an existing list but does not generate a separate candidate list according to cost. Remarks at 11.
Applicant’s arguments against Jun are not persuasive. Jun selects M “intermediate” blocks according to SAD/SATD from the set of MPM candidates. Jun at [0517]. The number M is less than the number of candidates in the MPM. Jun at [0517]. The “intermediate” blocks are the candidate list from which the mode is ultimately selected. This, in combination with the “sets” of Panusopone renders the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20250119548 A1
US 20240380879 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 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 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights