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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on 30 June 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the primary reference, Katra, “does not teach deriving a first candidate IPM based on a first template and a second candidate IPM based on a second template, and decoding the coding block based on first candidate IPM and the second candidate IPM, as recited in claim 27”… “The respective costs (e.g., SADs) computed for the first and second template portions are then summed, and the single mode having the minimum summed cost is selected as the intra-prediction mode used to code the block (See Katra [0108]). Katra's reference to "a plurality of respective candidate intra-modes" ( [0083]) are the directional hypotheses tested during the cost search, not two derived IPMs respectively associated with the first and second templates.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to uncited portions of Katra: ¶ [0108]: The cost function may output for each of a plurality of candidate intra modes… a similarity measure between pixels of the reference lines… To cover all of the DIMD candidate modes shown in FIG. 3A, the mode with the minimal cost may be chosen as a result of cost function calculations of a left template 412 of a reconstructed coding block adjacent to the left with a left reference line 423 in a left reconstructed image portion and a top template 411 of a reconstructed coding block adjacent to the top with a reference line 413 in a top reconstructed portion of the image. Examiner respectfully submits Katra discloses multiple candidate intra prediction modes on multiple templates used for encoding/decoding, as broadly required by the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 27, 35, 37, and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Katra et al. (US 20200145668 A1).
Regarding claims 27 and 37, Katra discloses a device to perform a method for video decoding, the method comprising: deriving a first candidate intra prediction mode (IPM) based on a first template of a coding block [Katra: ¶ [0083]: In particular, as shown in FIG. 4, already reconstructed samples 411, 412 of neighboring blocks (such as left and top neighbors in the processing order from left to right and from top to bottom) are used as a template for estimating the intra-mode for the current block. If two adjacent reconstructed coding blocks are available for the current coding block, the template comprises reconstructed samples 411 (referred to in the following as “first template”) of a first adjacent reconstructed coding block (e.g. a top template within the top neighbor of the current block) and reconstructed samples 412 (referred to in the following as “second template”) of a second adjacent reconstructed coding block (e.g. a left template within the top neighbor of the current block). The first and second template is matched respectively with corresponding portions obtained from a reference line 413, 423 for a plurality of respective candidate intra-modes]; deriving a second candidate IPM based on a second template of the coding block [Katra: ¶ [0083]: second template]; and decoding the coding block based on the first candidate IPM and the second candidate IPM [Katra: ¶ [0082]: the intra-mode is determined at the encoder side and at the decoder side based on the same information and in the same way, so that no signaling of the intra-mode is necessary].
Regarding Claims 35 and 45, Katra discloses all the limitations of Claims 27 and 37, respectively, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Furthermore, Katra discloses wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a left template of the coding block as the first template; and obtaining a top template of the coding block as the second template [Katra: ¶ [0083]: left… and top].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 28 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katra as applied to claims 27 and 37 above, and further in view of Cao et al. (JVET-W0123).
Regarding Claims 28 and 38, Katra disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 27 and 37, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Katra may not explicitly disclose herein the method further comprises: adding the first candidate IPM and the second candidate IPM to an IPM candidate list associated with the coding block, wherein the coding block is decoded based on the IPM candidate list.
However, Cao discloses herein the method further comprises: adding the first candidate IPM and the second candidate IPM to an IPM candidate list associated with the coding block, wherein the coding block is decoded based on the IPM candidate list [Cao: p. 1: MPM].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the processing of Katra with the list sorting of Cao in order to provide improved decision making, reducing computational load.
Claim(s) 29-30, 36, 39-40, and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katra as applied to claims 27 and 37 above, and further in view of Coban et al. (JVET-Y2025).
Regarding Claims 29 and 39, Katra disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 27 and 37, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Katra may not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: selecting a third candidate IPM based on a partition mode of the coding block; and adding the first candidate IPM, the second candidate IPM, and the third candidate IPM to an IPM candidate list associated with the coding block, wherein the coding block is decoded based on the IPM candidate list.
However, Coban discloses wherein the method further comprises: selecting a third candidate IPM based on a partition mode of the coding block; and adding the first candidate IPM, the second candidate IPM, and the third candidate IPM to an IPM candidate list associated with the coding block, wherein the coding block is decoded based on the IPM candidate list [Coban: §3.2.15: The inter predicted samples are derived by inter GPM whereas the intra predicted samples are derived by an intra prediction mode (IPM) candidate list and an index signaled from the encoder. The IPM candidate list size is pre-defined as 3].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the list sorting of Coban with the processing of Katra in order to provide improved decision making, reducing computational load.
Regarding Claims 30 and 40, Katra disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 27 and 37, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Katra may not explicitly disclose wherein the coding block comprises a first partition and a second partition, and wherein the method further comprises: generating an IPM candidate list associated with the coding block based on the first candidate IPM and the second candidate IPM; and determining a first prediction mode for the first partition and a second prediction mode for the second partition based on a spatial geometric partition mode (SGPM) index and the IPM candidate list.
However, Coban discloses wherein the coding block comprises a first partition and a second partition, and wherein the method further comprises: generating an IPM candidate list associated with the coding block based on the first candidate IPM and the second candidate IPM; and determining a first prediction mode for the first partition and a second prediction mode for the second partition based on a spatial geometric partition mode (SGPM) index and the IPM candidate list [Coban: §3.2. 5: The merge candidates for the new merge mode are derived from spatial neighboring coded blocks, TMVPs, non-adjacent blocks, HMVPs, pair-wise candidate, similar as in the regular merge mode]
Regarding Claims 36 and 46, Katra disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 27 and 37, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Katra may not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a left template of the coding block having a width of 1 as the first template; and obtaining a top template of the coding block having a height of 1 as the second template.
However, Coban discloses wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a left template of the coding block having a width of 1 as the first template; and obtaining a top template of the coding block having a height of 1 as the second template {Coban: § 3.1.9: FIG. 5].
Claim(s) 31-34, and 41-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katra as applied to claims 27 and 37 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (JVET-Z0124).
Regarding Claims 31 and 41, Katra disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 27 and 37, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Katra may not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining that an SGPM is used for the coding block; and based on determining that the SGPM is used for the coding block, obtaining the first template and the second template of the coding block for IPM derivation, wherein the second template is different from the first template.
However, Wang discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining that an SGPM is used for the coding block; and based on determining that the SGPM is used for the coding block, obtaining the first template and the second template of the coding block for IPM derivation, wherein the second template is different from the first template.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the decision processing of Wang with the processing of Katra in order to provide improved processing, reducing computational load.
Regarding Claims 32 and 42, Katra disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 27 and 37, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Katra may not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining that an SGPM is used for the coding block; based on determining that the SGPM is used for the coding block, obtaining the first template and the second template of the coding block for IPM derivation; obtaining a third template of the coding block that comprises the first and the second template; and ranking a plurality of candidates in an SGPM candidate list associated with the coding block based on the third template of the coding block.
However, Wang discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining that an SGPM is used for the coding block; based on determining that the SGPM is used for the coding block, obtaining the first template and the second template of the coding block for IPM derivation; obtaining a third template of the coding block that comprises the first and the second template; and ranking a plurality of candidates in an SGPM candidate list associated with the coding block based on the third template of the coding block [Wang: p. 1: TIMD].
Regarding Claims 33 and 43, Katra disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 27 and 37, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Katra may not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: determining the first template and the second template of the coding block based on a partition mode associated with the coding block.
However, Wang discloses wherein the method further comprises: determining the first template and the second template of the coding block based on a partition mode associated with the coding block [Wang: FIG. 2].
Regarding Claims 34 and 44, Katra disclose(s) all the limitations of Claims 27 and 37, respectively, and is/are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to those claims.
Katra may not explicitly disclose wherein the coding block comprises a first partition and a second partition, and wherein the method further comprises: determining the first template of the coding block based on the first partition; decoding the first partition of the coding block based at least on the first candidate IPM derived based on the first template; determining the second template of the coding block based on the second partition; and decoding the second partition of the coding block based at least on the second candidate IPM derived based on the second template.
However, Wang discloses wherein the coding block comprises a first partition and a second partition, and wherein the method further comprises: determining the first template of the coding block based on the first partition; decoding the first partition of the coding block based at least on the first candidate IPM derived based on the first template; determining the second template of the coding block based on the second partition; and decoding the second partition of the coding block based at least on the second candidate IPM derived based on the second template [Wang: FIG. 2].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JONATHAN R MESSMORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 EST/EDT.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/JONATHAN R MESSMORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights