DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application received 10/02/2024, wherein claims 1-13 and 16-22 are pending are examined as follows. Claims 14-15 were previously canceled and claims 16-22 were newly added.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) was submitted on 10/02/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Recommend placing CU in parenthesis, i.e. “A method of deriving a Decoder-side Intra Mode Derivation, DIMD, predictor for respective samples of a coding unit, CU, of a picture…” should read “A method of deriving a Decoder-side Intra Mode Derivation, DIMD, predictor for respective samples of a coding unit (CU) of a picture…”. Appropriate correction is required. Please check claim set for similar occurrences and updated accordingly.
6. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears the limitation phrase “weighted blending weight” should read “blending weight”. Please check and update accordingly.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321I or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 16-22 of copending Application No. 18/853,631 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as 631. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 631 contains claims that are directed to DIMD intra prediction mode selection in a template area which, in turn, can comprise a plurality of template areas. As such, the claims of 631 are found to anticipate those in the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are further provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 and 15-23 of copending Application No. 18/853,662 (reference application), hereinafter referred to as 662. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because 662 also contains claims that are directed to DIMD intra prediction mode selection in a template area which, in turn, can comprise a plurality of template areas. As such, the claims of 662 are found to anticipate those in the instant application. For reference, please refer to office action for the 662 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “at least some but not all of the IPMs are selected in the entire template area and the remaining IPMs are selected in a template area region or from a partial template area region adjacent to the CU region”. The foregoing limitation is not entirely clear since the template area region or partial template area region are all an integral part of the entire template area. If some but not all IPMs are selected in the entire template area, it’s unclear what is meant by the remaining IPMs corresponding to the regions since these make up the entire template area. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chuang et al. WO 2018/054269 A1, hereinafter referred to as Chuang, whose teachings describe various blending scenarios for performing DIMD (e.g. abstract). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Chuang teaches and/or suggests “A method of deriving a Decoder-side Intra Mode Derivation, DIMD, predictor for respective samples of a coding unit, CU, of a picture, the method comprising: selecting one or more Intra Prediction Modes, IPMs, in a template area adjacent to the CU [See pg. 8 lines 20-33 with respect to two-mode DIMD where two intra prediction modes can be selected via left and above templates], determining blending weights for blending at least the one or more selected IPMs [Weighting factors for different regions of a current block can be different (e.g. pg. 13 line 1-2). Since different weights can be applied for combining/blending DIMD predictors, said weights must have been previously determined], and generating the DIMD predictor by blending the one or more selected IPMs using the determined blending weights for the CU [Please refer to pg. 9 lines 32-35 and pg. 10 lines 1-20] so that the blending varies over the CU [See pg. 4 lines 13-24 (and pg. 9 lines 32-35 and pg. 10 lines 1-20) regarding position-dependent blending for a two-mode DIMD predictor. Fig. 4 illustrates the foregoing, highlighting different weightings for two regions of a CU].
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 “comprising: splitting the CU into two or more CU regions [A CU can be partitioned into various sub-regions/rows-bands as illustrated. Various partitions are disclosed throughout. See for e.g. figs. 4-7 and 11], wherein the blending weights are determined, for each out of at least a subset of the two or more CU regions [Examples of blending weights are disclosed throughout corresponding to two or more CU regions. Please see for e.g. fig. 11 which shows different determined weights for different row/column bands (i.e. regions) of the CU], dependent on the presence of the one or more selected IPMs in a part of the template area that is adjacent to the respective CU region [With respect to uniform (pg. 12 lines 25-34) and position dependent blending (pg. 12 line 35 and pg. 13 lines 1-17), each region-wise predictor depends on the presence of one or more selected IPMs], and wherein the DIMD predictor is generated using the determined blending weights determined for each CU region.” [Same citation as above which includes the associated blending weights]
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the one or more IPMs are selected using IPM statistics determined globally over the entire template area [Although not explicit, the DIMD coding mode, as referenced in Chuang (abstract), is typically derived with the help of a Histogram of Gradient (HoG), i.e. IPM statistics. Thus, Chuang’s teachings are deemed relevant. Please refer to Cao below for further support], the template area comprising a plurality of template area regions [See Chuang’s left and above templates in for e.g. fig. 3 (pg. 8 lines 20-30)], wherein - the selection is performed globally for the entire CU [Same as above, where two-mode DIMD corresponds to 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.” [Chuang’s position-dependent (i.e. region) blending allows for region-wise determination of predictors based on fused intra and DIMD predictors (e.g. pgs. 12 line 35 and pg. 13 lines 1-17]
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 required hardware and software, please refer to fig. 15 (pg. 17 lines 20-31) and pg. 18 lines 33-35 and pg. 19 lines 1-11 of Chuang for support.
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 required hardware and software, please refer to fig. 15 (pg. 17 lines 20-31) and pg. 18 lines 33-35 and pg. 19 lines 1-11 of Chuang for support.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, in view of Wang et al. US 11,388,421 B1, hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 4, (Currently Amended) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang does not appear to address the features of claim 4. As such, the work of Cao from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more IPMs are selected using IPM statistics [Deriving the DIMD coding mode via a Histogram of Gradients (HoG), is a means for performing IPM statistics (see Cao for example). Although Chuang does not explicitly refer to HoG, this would be within the knowledge of a skilled person in the art since Chuang does teach DIMD (abstract). Thus, Chuang’s teachings are deemed relevant] determined separately over - each of a plurality of template area regions of the template area [See for e.g. figs. 3, 4, and 6 (and corresponding text) with respect to the different template regions], the plurality of template area regions including a left template area region and an above template area region [Please refer to for e.g. Fig. 3], or - each of a plurality of partial template area regions of the template area, a partial template area region being a template area region adjacent only to one of the CU regions [Given the BRI of the foregoing features, portions of Chuang’s templates (e.g. figs. 3-6) can be construed as “partial template area regions”. In other words, this can represent a pixel or group of pixels in the template region that neighbors a part of the CU. For further support, see Wang below], and wherein the selection involves a region-wise selection out of the separately determined IPMs for each CU region.” [With respect to the figures above and their corresponding text support, predictors for each region of the CU can be made based on intra and DIMD predictors. For further support, see Wang below] For more explicit support of the foregoing features, the work of Wang from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “each of a plurality of partial template area regions of the template area [See the sub-templates (i.e. partial templates) in for e.g. figs. 31-33], a partial template area region being a template area region adjacent only to one of the CU regions [Figs. 31-33 show how each template is adjacent to one area of the CU. For e.g. template 2440 is adjacent to the left side of said CU, template 2460 is adjacent to the upper right corner of said CU, etc.] and wherein the selection involves a region-wise selection out of the separately determined IPMs for each CU region.” [See for e.g. col 6 lines 12-30 which describe determining a cost of an IPM based on the selected template. Also note col. 32 lines 35-47] Recognizing Wang’s teachings above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coding methods of Chuang to add the teachings of Wang as above based on a template set from a plurality of sub-templates in performing decoder-side intra prediction mode derivation (DIMD), in which a template may be selected from said set that better predicts the samples of a block and reduces the processing of unavailable samples (e.g. col. 6 lines 11-31).
Regarding claim 6, (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 one or more IPMs are selected in a manner aware of a subdivision of the template area into a plurality of template area regions [See the template regions presented in for e.g. fig. 3], the plurality of template area regions including a left template area region and an above template area region [Same citations above with respect to the above and left templates],- the template area further includes an above-left template area region [For e.g. see template-LA 2420 in fig. 31], the above-left template area region being allocated o to the above template area region, or o to the left template area region, or o to both the above template area region and the left template area region, or o as an additional template area region, and/or wherein - the one or more IPMs are selected in a manner aware of a subdivision of the template area into a plurality of partial template area regions,- the partial template area regions are defined by splitting the template area with the same vertical and/or horizontal lines as the CU when defining the two or more CU regions.” [As to the aforementioned features, Chaung does not appear to address these. Please refer to Wang below for corresponding support] Since Chuang does not address the remaining limitations, the work of Wang from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “ - the template area further includes an above-left template area region [For e.g. see template-LA 2420 in fig. 31], the above-left template area region being allocated o to the above template area region, or o to the left template area region, or o to both the above template area region and the left template area region, or o as an additional template area region [Recognizing the ‘or’ condition, please refer to fig. 31. This is also depicted in figs. 32-33], and/or wherein [Recognizing the ‘and/or’ limitation, the following features are not considered given the ‘or’ condition] - the one or more IPMs are selected in a manner aware of a subdivision of the template area into a plurality of partial template area regions,- the partial template area regions are defined by splitting the template area with the same vertical and/or horizontal lines as the CU when defining the two or more CU regions.” The motivation for combining Chuang and Wang has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Claims 5, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, in view of Liu et al. US 2017/0353719 A1, hereinafter referred to as Liu.
Regarding claim 5, (Currently Amended) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 2, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang further teaches and/or suggests “wherein determining the blending weights comprises - for a CU region located adjacent to the template area [See for e.g. figs. 3, 4, and 6], determining the blending weights dependent on a presence of the one or more selected IPMs in one or more template area regions or partial template area regions adjacent to the CU region [Refer to pg. 13 lines 1-18 with reference to fig. 6 for example, where each region (UL or LR) associated with an IPM(s) can have different weighting factors a and b as per equation 5 (pg. 12)],
However Chuang does not appear to address the remaining features of claim 5. Liu on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “and- for a CU region located not adjacent to the template area [Figs. 13-14 and 16 for example illustrate non-adjacent template areas to a CU], o selecting only a Planar mode as the DIMD predictor, or o selecting only a DC mode as the DIMD predictor, or o determining the blending weights using the one or more selected IPMs in one or more or all template area regions, or o determining the blending weights by weighting blending weights of a CU region adjacent to a template area region.” [Recognizing the ‘or’ conditions in the limitation above, please see ¶0066-¶0068 and ¶0081 of Liu, where ] Recognizing Liu’s teachings above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coding methods of Chuang, to add the teachings of Liu as above for template-based intra prediction, to help reduce the complexity and increase the coding efficiency associated with DIMD (e.g. ¶0028).
Regarding claim 11, (Currently Amended) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Chuang does not appear to address the features of claim 11, Liu from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach/suggest “wherein - for a CU region, which is located adjacent to a first template area region for which no IPM is selected and which is distant from a second template area region for which one or more IPMs are selected, the blending weights are weighted blending weights of the CU region adjacent to the second template area region, or [Recognizing the ‘or’ condition, the limitation that follows is examined] - for a CU region [See e.g. fig. 14], which is located adjacent to a first template area region for which a first IPM is selected and which is distant from a second template area region for which a second IPM is selected [Fig. 14. Also refer to ¶0066-¶0067. Although not explicit, Liu’s teachings do address combining modes in ¶0082. As such, Liu is deemed relevant], the blending weights for the second IPM is a weighted blending weight for the second IPM of the CU region adjacent to the second template area region.” [Same as above] The motivation for combining Chuang and Liu has been discussed in connection with claim 5, above.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 5.
Claims 7-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, in view of Wang, and in further view of Cao et al. US 2022/0394269 A1 (with reference to Provisional application No. 63/196,580 and 63/217,158), hereinafter referred to as Cao.
Regarding claim 7, (Currently Amended) Chuang and Wang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Chuang however does not appear to address the features of claim 7. Wang on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to further teach and/or suggest “wherein one or more first IPMs are selected in a template area region of the template area, and one or more second IPMs are selected in a partial template area region of the template area [Recognizing the ‘and/or’ limitation in claim 6, the definition of the partial template area region may not be realized. As such, see figs. 31-33, where template-LA (2420) can be construed as a ‘partial area template region’ when compared to for e.g. template L (2440) which can be construed as a ‘template area region’. Selected 1st and 2nd IPMs can be made based on 1st and 2nd selected templates (e.g. col. 31 lines 25-67, col. 32 lines 1-17, and col. 34 lines 61-67)] and wherein - if the CU has a rectangular shape, the first IPM is selected in the template area region adjacent to the a longer size of the CU, and the second IPM is selected in the partial template area region adjacent to the a shorter size of the CU, or selecting the first IPM and the second IPM in the template area region or from the partial template area region adjacent to the CU depends on a direction of a peak IPM in the template area region or in the entire template area.” [Wang however does not appear to address the aforementioned features. Please refer to Cuo below] Given Wang does not appear to teach/suggest the above limitations, Cao from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “and wherein - if the CU has a rectangular shape [See current CU shown in figs. 3-4], the first IPM is selected in the template area region adjacent to the a longer size of the CU, and the second IPM is selected in the partial template area region adjacent to the a shorter size of the CU [Refer to ¶0076-¶0077 where for each template region each IPM in a MPM list may be used to generate a prediction block. Since an IPM is chosen with the lowest cost, an IPM will be selected for both sides of the CU corresponding to their respective templates], or selecting the first IPM and the second IPM in the template area region or from the partial template area region adjacent to the CU depends on a direction of a peak IPM in the template area region or in the entire template area.” [See ¶0071 and ¶0085 for example] Recognizing Cao’s teachings above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coding methods of Chuang and Wang, to add the teachings of Cao as above for improving coding efficiency and performance of intra prediction based on a modified form of template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) which relies on a fusion/blending of preliminary prediction blocks to form a prediction block for coding video (e.g. ¶0005).
Regarding claim 8, (Currently Amended) Chuang and Wang teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However Chuang and Wang do not appear to address the features of claim 8. Cao on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein, in case two or more IPMs are selected [See for e.g. ¶0073 and ¶0089 with respect to two or three DIMD modes, respectively], at least some but not all of the IPMs are selected in the entire template area [Fusing some IPMs via blending weights (e.g. ¶0073 and ¶0089) corresponds to the entire template area (e.g. 352 in fig. 3), where fused IPMs are selected IPMs] and the remaining IPMs are selected in a template area region or from a partial template area region adjacent to the CU region [See for e.g. ¶0090 with respect to finding the lowest cost for selecting the IPM from the candidate list as the final IPM], or wherein, in case two IPMs are selected [¶0073], a first IPM in the entire template area is selected [This can be understood as for e.g. Cao’s mode1 in ¶0073] and - if there is no second IPM from the template area region or the partial template area region adjacent to the CU region [It appears Cao’s mode2 (above) corresponds to template 352 and thus is not associated with any particular template area region or partial template area region], o the first IPM is used as the DIMD predictor [mode1 can be used as a DIMD predictor], or o the first IPM is blended with a Planar or DC mode using a predefined weight to obtain the DIMD predictor [Blending weights for blending IPMs (¶0073) include the planar mode],- if there is a second IPM selected in the template area region or the partial template area region adjacent to the CU region o if the second IPM is different from the first IPM, blend the first IPM and the second IPM to obtain the DIMD predictor, o if the second IPM is equal to the first IPM, select a further IPM in the template area region adjacent to the CU region and blend the first IPM and the further IPM to obtain the DIMD predictor.” [The ‘if’ limitation above is conditional language. Since Cao does not appear to have a 2nd IPM in the template area region or the partial template area region adjacent to the CU, the subsequent features will not be performed] The motivation for combining Chuang, Wang, and Cao has been discussed in connection with claim 7, above.
Regarding claim 9, (Currently Amended) Chuang, Wang, and Cao teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 8, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. However they do not appear to address the features of claim 9. Liu on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein for a CU region located not adjacent to any of the template area regions [See for e.g. the non-adjacent template regions to the current block as shown for e.g. in fig. 14],- only the first IPM is used as the DIMD predictor, - only the Planar mode is used as the DIMD predictor, - only the DC mode is used as the DIMD predictor, or - the first IPM is blended with the Planar or DC mode using a predefined weight to obtain the DIMD predictor.” [Recognizing the ‘or’ conditions above, Liu’s teachings describe applying different weights to different templates at various distances from the current block (¶0066-¶0067). ¶0082 further shows different modes can be combined, which may include DC or Planar mode. Please note, Cao does teach blending IPMs with the planar mode (e.g. ¶0073, ¶0089)] The motivation for combining Chuang, Wang, and Cao has been discussed in connection with claim 7, above.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method of Claim 8.
Claim 10, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang, in view of Cao.
Regarding claim 10, (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/suggests “wherein, in case more than one IPM is selected [See two-mode DIMD (abstract). Cao also describes this as shown below] - if the IPMs are present in a template area region adjacent to a CU region, the blending weights associated with the IPMs are used [See figs. 3 and 6 (and associated text) with respect to position dependent blending for two-mode DIMD. Weighting factors of a and b (equation 5) may be different. Cao also describes this as shown below],- if only one of the IPMs is present in a template area region adjacent to a CU region, the blending weight associated with the one IPM or a weighted blending weight associated with the one IPM is used, and the blending weight associated with any other IPM is set to a predefined value [Chuang however does not address the foregoing. Please see Cao below] or if no IPM is present in the adjacent template area region of the CU region, the blending weights associated with the IPMs are set to a predefined value or wherein, in case one IPM is selected - if the one IPM is present in a template area region adjacent to a CU region, the blending weight associated with the one IPM or a weighted blending weight associated with the one IPM is used, and the blending weight associated with any other IPM is set to a predefined value, if the one IPM is not present in a template area region adjacent to a CU region, the blending weight associated with the one IPM and the blending weight associated with any other IPM is set to a predefined value or wherein in case no IPM is selected, the blending weight associated with any other IPM is set to a predefined value.” [In light of the ‘or’ conditions above, in a case that more than one IPM is selected, the first condition is examined. Please see below with respect to Cao. Further, for the case when one IPM is selected, this too is deemed conditional, and thus may or may not be executed] Since Chuang does not address “if only one of the IPMs is present in a template area region adjacent to a CU region, the blending weight associated with the one IPM or a weighted blending weight associated with the one IPM is used, and the blending weight associated with any other IPM is set to a predefined value”, Cao from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach/suggest the foregoing features. [Per ¶0073, Cao shows for e.g. mode1 determined from HoG with a blending weight as shown. Further, Planar mode is fused using a predefined value of 1/3. This is also illustrated in ¶0089-¶0090 with a predefined value of 1/4] Recognizing Cao’s teachings above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coding methods of Chuang, to add the teachings of Cao as above for improving coding efficiency and performance of intra prediction based on a modified form of template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) which relies on a fusion/blending of preliminary prediction blocks to form a prediction block for coding video (e.g. ¶0005).
Regarding claim 16, (Currently Amended) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Chuang teaches the DIMD coding mode which is known to be performed using a Histogram of Gradient (HoG), Chuang does not explicitly refer this. Cao on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is brought in to teach and/or suggest “wherein the one or more IPMs are selected from a Histogram of Gradients, HoG.” [See for e.g. ¶0071 of Cao] The motivation for combining Chuang and Cao has been discussed in connection with claim 10, above.
Regarding claim 22, (Currently Amended) Chuang teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 10, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Since Chuang does not appear to address the features of claim 22, Cao from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach/suggest “wherein a blending weight associated with a Planar or DC mode is set to a predefined value.” [See fixed blending weights associated with the Planar mode (e.g. ¶0073 (1/3) and ¶0089 (1/4)] The motivation for combining Chuang and Cao has been discussed in connection with claim 10, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 19-20 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:
19. (New) The method of claim 7, wherein a main direction of the peak IPM computed in the template area region or in the entire template area is more vertical than horizontal, the first IPM is selected in the left or above template area region adjacent to the CU region, and the second IPM is selected in the partial above or left template area region adjacent to the CU region.
20. (New) The method of claim 7, wherein a main direction of the peak IPM computed in the template area region or in the entire template is more horizontal than vertical, the first IPM is selected in the above or left template area region, and the second IPM is selected in the partial left or above template area region adjacent to the CU region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
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
/JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights