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 .
Response to Amendment
In the response filed 04/15/2026, applicant amended claims 1, 13 and 25, cancelled claims 8 and 20 and added claim 32. Therefore, claims 1-7, 9-16, 21, 24-25 and 32 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Allowable Subject Matter
The examiner thanks the applicant for their acknowledgement of the allowability of the subject matter of claims 2-3 and 14-15.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s attempt to distinguish Chen based on the alleged order of operations is unpersuasive. Chen expressly discloses intra prediction fusion using a plurality of reference lines, where the current block is predicted based on multiple reference lines and associated weights. See, e.g., paragraphs [0147]–[0157], [0174]–[0186], [0200]–[0203], and [0213]–[0218]. Although Chen describes the fusion mathematically as a weighted combination of predictions derived from separate reference lines, that is simply one way of describing the same underlying predictive process. The claim language does not require a distinct physical intermediate data structure or a rigid sequencing in which a “fused reference sample line” must first be separately constructed before any prediction can occur. Rather, Chen’s disclosure of combining multiple reference lines through weighted intra prediction fusion necessarily results in a final predicted sample or block derived from those fused reference-line contributions.
Accordingly, the purported distinction between “fusing the reference sample lines first and then predicting” versus “predicting from separate reference lines and then combining the results” is an insubstantial drafting difference that does not avoid Chen. At minimum, Chen teaches or renders obvious the claimed limitation of “fusing the plurality of reference sample lines into a fused reference sample line; and predicting the current block based on the fused reference sample line.”.
Further, the remaining remarks on pages 11 and 12 do not materially add anything further to the conversation and therefore are addressed by nature above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9-13, 16, 21, 24-25 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al., (US 2024/0022732 A1) hereinafter referred to as CHEN hereafter.
Regarding claim 1, CHEN shows a prediction method applied to a video decoder, comprising:
decoding an intra prediction mode from a bitstream (Paragraph [0030] discloses decoding a mode that determines multiple line prediction (or not).); and
performing an intra fusion prediction of a current block to obtain a prediction block (Paragraph [0030] clearly describes a reference line fusion operation as desired.),
wherein the intra fusion prediction comprises predicting the current block based on a plurality of reference sample lines and the intra prediction mode (Paragraph [0030] discloses weighting multiple reference lines and their various combinations and subsequently fusing them to obtain a predicted sample block.);
wherein predicting the current block based on the plurality of reference sample lines and the intra prediction mode further comprises:
fusing the plurality of reference sample lines into a fused reference sample line (Paragraphs [0175]-[0181] describe fusion.); and
predicting the current block based on the fused reference sample line (Paragraph [0186]).
Regarding claim 4, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein predicting the current block based on the plurality of reference sample lines and the intra prediction mode further comprises:
determining a plurality of prediction blocks by performing prediction based on a plurality of reference sample lines, respectively, such that each prediction block is determined based on each reference sample line, wherein the plurality of reference sample lines are spatially adjacent to each other (FIGs. 15-16 show both the orientation of the multiple reference lines in relation to the current block to be predicted as well as each of the samples within the reference lines to be used. See also paragraphs [0153]-[0156] for a general description of the procedure.); and
fusing the plurality of prediction blocks into the current block (Paragraphs [0153]-[0154] show the fusion operation.).
Regarding claim 5, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 4 as applied above, and further shows wherein the plurality of reference sample lines comprises a first reference sample line and a second reference sample line, the method further comprises decoding first information from the bitstream, wherein the first information indicates an index of the first reference sample line (Paragraph [0136] discloses the construct of a reference line index. FIG. 13 also displays indexed lines.).
Regarding claim 6, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 5 as applied above, and further shows wherein if the index is equal to 0, the second reference sample line is a reference sample spatially adjacent to the first reference sample line away from the current block (Paragraph [0144] describes this.).
Regarding claim 7, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 5 as applied above, and further shows wherein if the index is greater than 0, the second reference sample line is a reference sample spatially adjacent to the first reference sample line near the current block (Paragraph [0144] describes this.).
Regarding claim 9, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows decoding second information from the bitstream; and enabling intra fusion prediction for decoding luma component and/or chroma component of the current block based on the second information (Paragraph [0214] shows signaling indicating multiple reference line prediction is taking place.).
Regarding claim 10, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 9 as applied above, and further shows wherein enabling intra fusion prediction for decoding luma component and/or chroma component of the current block is at at least one level (Paragraph [0173] discloses the levels used for signaling such information for decoding purposes.).
Regarding claim 12, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the current block comprises a chroma block and/or at least one luma block (Paragraph [0150]).
Regarding claim 13, CHEN shows a prediction method applied to a video encoder, comprising:
performing an intra fusion prediction of a current block to obtain a prediction block,
wherein the intra fusion prediction includes predicting the current block based on a plurality of reference sample lines and an intra prediction mode (FIG. 17 describes the encoder-side prediction process.); and
encoding the intra prediction mode into a bitstream (FIG. 19 describes an encoding process. Of note, the entire disclosed invention and art in general is centered around an encoding/decoding relationship and therefore is implicitly anticipated regardless of the explicit teachings, which are there as well.);
wherein predicting the current block based on the plurality of reference sample lines and the intra prediction mode further comprises:
fusing the plurality of reference sample lines into a fused reference sample line (Paragraphs [0175]-[0181] describe fusion.); and
predicting the current block based on the fused reference sample line (Paragraph [0186]).
Regarding claim 16, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 13 as applied above, and further shows wherein predicting the current block based on the plurality of reference sample lines and the intra prediction mode further comprises: determining a plurality of prediction blocks by performing prediction based on a plurality of reference sample lines, respectively, such that each prediction block is determined based on each reference sample line, wherein the plurality of reference sample lines are spatially adjacent to each other (FIGs. 15-16 show both the orientation of the multiple reference lines in relation to the current block to be predicted as well as each of the samples within the reference lines to be used. See also paragraphs [0153]-[0156] for a general description of the procedure.); and fusing the plurality of prediction blocks into the current block (Paragraphs [0153]-[0154] show the fusion operation.).
Regarding claim 21, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 13 as applied above, and further shows setting information to indicate enabling of the intra fusion when intra fusion prediction is used (Paragraph [0214] shows signaling indicating multiple reference line prediction is taking place.); and
encoding the information into the bitstream (Paragraphs [0170]-[0175] discuss signaling and placement of signals.);
wherein the information is encoded at at least one level (Paragraph [0173]).
Regarding claim 24, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 13 as applied above, and further shows wherein the current block comprises a chroma block and/or at least one luma block (Paragraph [0150]).
Regarding claim 25, CHEN shows a video decoding device (FIG. 5; FIG. 21), comprising:
a memory (FIG. 21, 2147);
a transceiver (FIG. 5, RECEIVER 531); and
a processor (FIG. 21, pick between 2141-2144) coupled to the memory and the transceiver; wherein the processor is configured to perform;
decoding an intra prediction mode from a bitstream (Paragraph [0030] discloses decoding a mode that determines multiple line prediction (or not).); and
performing an intra fusion prediction of a current block to obtain a prediction block (Paragraph [0030] clearly describes a reference line fusion operation as desired.),
wherein the intra fusion prediction comprises predicting the current block based on a plurality of reference sample lines and the intra prediction mode (Paragraph [0030] discloses weighting multiple reference lines and their various combinations and subsequently fusing them to obtain a predicted sample block.);
wherein predicting the current block based on the plurality of reference sample lines and the intra prediction mode further comprises:
fusing the plurality of reference sample lines into a fused reference sample line (Paragraphs [0175]-[0181] describe fusion.); and
predicting the current block based on the fused reference sample line (Paragraph [0186]).
Regarding claim 32, CHEN discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Paragraph [0258]), having a computer program and a bitstream stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, enables the processor to perform the steps of the prediction method of claim 13, to generate the bitstream (The functionality of claim 32 is substantially identical to that of claim 13 above and therefore is rejected for the same reasons as claim 13 above.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN in view of Cao et al., (USPN 11,997,258 B2) referred to as CAO hereinafter.
Regarding claim 11, CHEN shows the limitations of claim 10 as applied above, however failing to but CAO further shows wherein the at least one level comprises a sequence parameter set (SPS) level, a picture header (PH) level, a picture parameter set (PPS) level, and/or a slice header (SH) level (Column 14, lines 4-10 disclose encoding signaling information related to multiple reference lines in headers or SPS.).
Both CHEN and CAO are analogous art to the claimed invention in that they all lie in the field of improving multiple reference line mode in video compression.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CHEN in the spirit of CAO as these various coding levels are fundamental parts of the various layers in modern coding techniques.
It would have been obvious to implement the fusion specific signal of CHEN into the various layers discussed in CAO because according to the various standards relevant to this timeframe in the industry, this is the standard means for transporting signaling information from the encoder to the decoder. Therefore, this technique would be capable of predictable and unquestionable results without any undue experimentation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 14-15 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
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 JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 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 J 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights