DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 12/16/2025.
In the filed response, Claims 1, 2, 3, 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 have been amended, where Claims 1, 12, and 13 are independent claims, with Claims 14-15 being previously cancelled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-13 and 16-22 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-15, filed 12/16/2025, 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 Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.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 further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of new prior art Chuang et al. US 2019/0215521 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Chuang. Please see examiner’s responses below.
2. Applicant argues (see for e.g. pg. 14) the art of record (notably Zhang, Abdoli, and Jhu) fails to teach and/or suggest “for each sample of the CU, determining, dependent on a distance of the sample of the CU to the template area, sample-wise blending weights for blending at least the one or more selected IPMs, wherein the CU comprises a plurality of samples, and the sample- wise blending weights vary across different samples of the CU" as recited in amended claim 1” (emphasis added). Applicant further asserts that Abdoli “determines the weight only at the block-level, for example, each matrix of N weighting matrices has the same size as the current block and all the elements in each matrix are identical to the same weight”. Lastly, Applicant notes Zhang fails to cure the deficiencies of Abdoli in view of Jhu.
3. Examiner agrees with Applicant regarding the foregoing, however, in light of the newly added limitation “sample-wise blending weights” that “vary across different samples of the CU”, as recited for e.g. in claim 1, new prior art Chuang is introduced. For e.g., in ¶0023, with reference to figs. 13A and 13B, Chuang describes the dependency of weighting factors on a horizontal/vertical distance between a current pixel (i.e. sample) and a vertical/horizontal edge of a current block (CB), respectively, where said edge marks the beginning of the template area. Figs. 14A-14B further shows the CB can be divided into multiple bands in a target direction orthogonal to a direction of the DIMD-derived intra mode and the weighting factors are further dependent on a target band that a current pixel is located. In other words, depending on where each pixel/sample is located relative its distance from the edge of the CB (i.e. the start of the template area), a position-dependent blending weight, i.e. a pixel-wise/sample-wise blending weight, can be determined. As such, Chuang’s figures reasonably depict variable blending weights across different pixels/samples of the CB. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), weights that “vary across different samples of the CU” , as recited, does not necessarily have to mean they vary across each and every sample of the CU. Although weights may be assigned to each sample (i.e. sample-wise), the weights only have to vary across different samples of the CU, not every sample. If they vary across different samples, this can mean the different samples can be located in different regions/bands of the CU. For example, samples in Chuang’s weighting band w1 (e.g. fig. 14A) are different than those samples in weighting band w2 of the CU. In other words, they “vary across different samples of the CU”. Although Chuang’s weights vary across bands that divide the CB, they are deemed relevant since they are shown to vary across different pixels/samples that lie between the bands, i.e. “across different samples of the CU”. Thus, for these reasons, which are further elaborated on below, the examiner respectfully submits Chuang reasonably teaches and/or suggests, either alone or in combination, all of the features of claim 1 given their BRI. The foregoing rationale also applies to Claims 12 and 13.
4. Applicant’s amendments to the drawings in response to the drawing objections are acknowledged. As such, the objections are withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s amendments in response to the claim objections are acknowledged. As such, the objections 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. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-13 and 16-22 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chuang et al. US 2019/0215521 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chuang, where Chuang describes position-dependent blending weights with reference to for e.g. fig.13. Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the following limitation, Chuang is found to teach and/or suggest “A method of deriving a Decoder-side Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) predictor for respective samples of a coding unit (CU) of a picture [See abstract with respect to using DIMD], the method comprising: selecting one or more Intra Angular Prediction Modes (IPMs) in a template area adjacent to the CU [Please refer to the template areas in fig. 15]; for each sample of the CU, determining, dependent on a distance of the sample of the CU to the template area, sample-wise blending weights for blending at least the one or more selected IPMs, wherein the CU comprises a plurality of samples, and the sample- wise blending weights vary across different samples of the CU [With respect to examiner’s response #3 above, please see ¶0023, with reference to figs. 13A and 13B. Chuang describes the dependency of weighting factors on a horizontal/vertical distance between a current pixel (i.e. sample) and a vertical/horizontal edge of a current block (CB), respectively, where said edge marks the beginning of the template area. Also see figs. 14A and 14B for support]; and generating the DIMD predictor by blending the one or more selected IPMs and a Planar or DC mode using the determined sample-wise blending weights.” [According to Chuang above, a best DIMD derived angular mode can be derived. If a signaled intra mode is a non-angular mode (e.g. DC or Planar), the best DIMD derived mode and the non-angular mode are used for blending (e.g. ¶0081-¶0083)]
Regarding claim 2, (Currently Amended) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the sample-wise blending weights are determined such that the samples of the CU closer to the template area are weighted with a higher IPM contribution [See the distribution of sample-wise blending weights in fig. 7 (e.g. ¶0079-¶0082). Samples in the top and left bands of the CU (i.e. those nearest the template area) have a DIMD weight of 1 and an Intra weight of 0, where said DIMD weight corresponds to a higher IPM contribution], and the samples of the CU further away from the template area are weighted with higher Planar or DC contribution.” [Likewise, fig. 7 shows a higher Intra weight of 1 (with DIMD of 0) for those samples located further away from the template]
Regarding claim 5, (Previously Presented) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the distance for a sample is determined using only a position of the sample in the CU and a size of the CU.” [¶0019, for example, illustrates the significance of position of a pixel/sample within a region/band of the CU (e.g. figs. 13A-13B and 14A-14B). It further illustrates the importance of CU size when considering the number of row/column bands]
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software, please refer to for e.g. ¶0104 and ¶0109 of Chuang.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 1. As to the claimed hardware and software, please refer to for e.g. ¶0104 and ¶0109 of Chuang.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 3-4, 6-8, 18-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chuang, in view of Jhu et al. WO 2023/154359 A1 (with reference to Priority Data 63/309,491), hereinafter referred to as Jhu.
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the sample-wise blending weights for the selected IPMs for a sample of the CU are determined” [Given the BRI of “sample-wise blending weights” (see examiner’s response #3), please refer to the distributed blending weights of samples in the row/column bands of fig. 7, which in turn, are based on distance] Chuang does not appear to address the remaining features of claim 3. On the other hand, Jhu from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the sample-wise blending weights for the selected IPMs for a sample of the CU are determined by weighting a first value obtained from one or more predefined characteristics associated with the IPMs in accordance with the distance.” [¶00160-¶00161, for example, refer to the identified IPMs having the tallest histogram bars, i.e. highest amplitudes in the HoG (e.g. fig. 10) which are construed to mean ‘predefined characteristics’, given the BRI] Given Jhu’s teachings above, it would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coding techniques of Chuang which describe variable blending weights across different pixels/samples of the CB, to add the teachings of Jhu as above, for improving the coding efficiency of a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) with adaptive blending in a video encoding or decoding process (e.g. ¶0005).
Regarding claim 4, (Original) Chuang and Jhu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the blending weight for a Planar or DC mode is determined using only the distance.” [Per fig. 7, the Intra weight for the IntraMode (e.g. DC/Planar) varies according to distance. Also please note ¶0082 regarding said IntraMode]
Regarding claim 6, (Previously Presented) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang however does not address the features of claim 6. On the other hand, Jhu from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more IPMs are selected using IPM statistics [See reference to HoG (i.e. IPM statistics) in fig. 10 and corresponding text] determined globally over - the entire template area [See the DIMD template described with reference to fig. 9 and associated text, where a Sobel filter is applied to all 3x3 window positions in the template, i.e. over the entire template area], the template area comprising a plurality of template area regions, wherein the selection is performed globally for the entire CU, or - the selection involves a global selection of a set of IPMs for the entire CU, followed by a further region-wise selection out of the set of IPMs for each CU region.” [Recognizing the ‘or condition’ above, please see the template regions shown in figs. 9-10 of Jhu which are used to derive the HoG as shown] The motivation for combining Chuang and Jhu has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 7, (Previously Presented) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1 and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang however does not address the features of claim 7. On the other hand, Jhu from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more IPMs are selected using IPM statistics [See reference to HoG (i.e. IPM statistics) in fig. 10 and corresponding text] determined separately over each of a plurality of template area regions of the template area [Given the BRI of “determined separately”, please see the DIMD template zone described with reference to fig. 9, where a Sobel filter at one 3x3 window position is applied to the template. This is done separately for all window positions in the template. Also refer to the HoG computation in fig. 1 of Abdoli below], the plurality of template area regions including a left template area region and an above template area region [See templates shown in figs. 8-10 and associated text, i.e. pixels above and to the left], wherein the selection involves a region-wise selection out of the separately determined IPMs for each CU region.” [Please refer to the 3-samples wide template area of the current block (i.e. region-wise selection) in for e.g. fig. 9 to facilitate the gradient analysis from which the IPMs can be determined] The motivation for combining Chuang and Jhu has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claim 8, (Previously Presented) Chuang and Jhu teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6 and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein, in case a selected IPM is present only in one of the template area regions [Figs. 13A-13B and 14A-14B (and associated text) illustrate the case when the derived angular mode points to a template], the blending weight of the selected IPM is determined dependent on the distance of a sample in the CU to the adjacent template area region in which the selected IPM is present.” [The above figures further demonstrate how the blending weight depends on the distance of the pixel/sample in the CU]
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 3.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 4.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 6.
Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 9, 10, 11, and 16 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. In light of the specification, the Examiner finds the claimed invention to be patentably distinct from the prior art of records. The prior art of record, taken individually or in combination fail to explicitly teach or render obvious within the context of the respective independent claims the limitations:
9. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 8, wherein the distance for a sample is determined using only one of the position coordinates of the sample in the CU and only one dimension of the CU.
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 6, further comprising: splitting the CU into two or more CU regions, wherein for at least one of the CU regions adjacent to the template area, for each sample of the CU region the sample-wise blending weights for blending at least the one or more selected IPMs are determined dependent on a distance of the sample of the CU region to the template area, and wherein the DIMD predictor is generated using the sample-wise blending weights determined for each CU region.
11. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 9, wherein only for one or some but not all of the CU regions of the CU the blending weights are determined dependent on a distance of the samples of the respective CU region to the template area, and for each remaining CU region the blending weights for blending at least the one or more selected IPMs are - global blending weights determined for the entire CU, or - local blending weights determined dependent on an adjacency of the CU region to the template area.
16. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 11, wherein, for a CU region located not adjacent to the template area, only the Planar mode is selected as the DIMD predictor; only the DC mode is selected as the DIMD predictor; the blending weights are determined using the one or more selected IPMs in one or more or all template area regions; or the blending weights are determined by weighting blending weights of a CU region adjacent to a template area region.
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