DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
For Example, in claim 11:
angular mode derivation apparatus;
gradient derivation unit;
angular mode derivation unit.
In claim 12:
angular mode derivation apparatus; and
mode convert processing unit.
In claim 13:
angular mode derivation apparatus; and
angular mode selection unit.
In claim 14: angular mode derivation apparatus.
In claim 15: angular mode derivation apparatus.
In claim 16: angular mode derivation apparatus.
In claim 17:
angular mode derivation apparatus; and
angular mode selection unit.
In claim 18:
video decoding apparatus;
angular mode derivation apparatus; and
prediction image derivation unit.
In claim 19:
video decoding apparatus; and
transform processing unit.
In claim 20:
video decoding apparatus; and
prediction image derivation unit.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIU et al., (From IDS: AHG12: Removal of floating operations in DMD and TIMD, Document: JVET-X0149-v1, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 29, 24th Meeting, by teleconference, 6-15 October 2021) in view of YASUGI et al., (WO 2025/032844).
Regarding claim 11: XIU teaches: An angular mode derivation apparatus [1 Introdution, ¶1 teaches: two decoder-side coding tools] , comprising: a gradient derivation unit configured to derive a first gradient(Dx) being a gradient 1of a pixel value included in a gradient derivation target image, a second gradient(Dy) different from the first gradient, a first absolute value(absx) of the first gradient, a second absolute value(absy) of the second gradient [1 Introduction, ¶3 teaches: the gradient orientation of each template sample (i.e. first and second gradient)…applied at sample position to calculate such orientation from its horizontal and vertical gradients], and a magnitude relationship(xgty) between the first absolute value and the second absolute value [¶5 teaches: The weights of the two angular modes are
determined based on their gradient amplitude (i.e. magnitude relationship), which are derived based on floating-point operations]; an angular mode derivation unit configured to set the second absolute value(absy) to a first variable(S0) and the first absolute value(absx) to a second variable(S1), in a case that the first absolute value(absx) is greater than the second absolute value(absy), and otherwise, set the first absolute value(absx) to the first variable(S0) and the second absolute value(absy) to the second variable(Sl), derive a reciprocal number(v) of the second variable(S1) by using the first variable(S0) and a first table(gradDivTable) [2 Proposal, ¶1 teaches: the gradient orientations based on the LUT-based scheme],.
However, it does not appear that XIU explicitly teaches derive an angle coefficient(iRatio) by using the first variable(S0) and the reciprocal number(v).
In a related field of endeavor, YASUGI teaches derive an angle coefficient(iRatio) by using the first variable(S0) and the reciprocal number(v) [¶ teaches: The angle coefficient derivation unit 310466 derives the angle coefficient ratioLog of the target pixel (which may be subsampled) based on two gradients (Dx, Dy). Here, it derives the logarithmic value of the slope ratioLog based on the absolute value absx of the first gradient and the absolute value absy of the second gradient.].
Given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate YASUGI’s teaching of an angle coefficient into XIU’s angular mode derivation apparatus for the benefit, as taught by YASUGI, of has the advantage of being simple. [YASUGI translation, page 18]
Regarding claim 15: the essence of the claim is taught above in the rejection of claim 11.
In addition, XIU teaches wherein elements of the second table(LUT) are integers of 0 or greater [2 Proposal, ¶7 teaches: DivSigTable[l6] = { 0, 7, 6, 5 ,5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0 }].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14 and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon: Please refer to the references listed in an attached PTO-892 and that are not relied upon for the claim rejections detailed above. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
In particular, TSAI et al., (US 2025/0254292) teaches a method and apparatus for improvement of decoder-derived intra prediction in a video coding system;
LEE et al., (US 2022/0060744) teaches decoding an image including determining whether a current block is in a bi-directional optical flow (BIO) mode, calculating gradient information of prediction samples of the current block when the current block is in the BIO mode, and generating a prediction block of the current block using the calculated gradient information; and
SHEN (US 2017/0302962) teaches: acquiring a gradient amplitude and a gradient angle of each element in a prediction block; analyzing statistics on the gradient angles and generating a gradient angle histogram of the prediction block; if the texture smoothness of the prediction block is greater than a first pre-determined threshold value, determining that the prediction block is a first-type prediction block, and setting a prediction mode of the first-type prediction block to comprise a direct current prediction mode and a planar prediction mode.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marnie Matt whose telephone number is (303)297-4255. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30-5:00.
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.
/MARNIE A MATT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485