DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected because it is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “computer readable storage medium” includes both transitory and non-transitory signals, and transitory signals are not statutory subject matter. Applicant can overcome this rejection by limiting “computer readable storage medium” to “non-transitory” signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 13 are 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. These claims recite “encoding” or “decoding” in the preamble but lack an affirmative encoding or decoding step in the claim bodies. This generates ambiguity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cohen (US PG Publication 2012/0281928).
Regarding Claim 14, Cohen (US PG Publication 2012/0281928) discloses a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream (coder encodes a bit stream or signal for compression, transmission, storage or encryption, and the decoder decodes the encoded bit stream for playback or editing [0028]). The remainder of Claim 14 has no patentable weight because it is non-functional printed matter. See MPEP 2111.05.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) in view of Lee (US PG Publication 2021/0258603).
Regarding Claim 1, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses an image decoding (VTM-5.0, encoder and decoder, Abstract) method, comprising:
deriving a linear prediction parameter (a, b, c, equation 1) for a current block (a block, Section 2) from a neighboring region adjacent to the current block (parameters a, b and c in the prediction model is estimated based on the neighboring samples values’ and locations, Section 2); and
obtaining a prediction sample (Pred (x,y), equation 1) of the current block (block, Section 2) based on the linear prediction parameter (a, b, c, equation 1),
wherein the linear prediction parameter includes at least one of one or more weights (a, b, equation 1) and a predetermined offset (c, equation 1),
wherein the one or more weights include at least one of a first weight (a, equation 1) for a horizontal variation (represents a horizontal variation because it is applied to the x coordinate which is a horizontal coordinate, equation 1) or a second weight (b, equation 1) for a vertical variation (represents a vertical variation because it is applied to the y coordinate, which is a vertical coordinate, equation 1), and
wherein the neighboring region includes at least one of a left neighboring region, a top neighboring region, a top-left neighboring region, a top-right neighboring region, or a bottom-left neighboring region (left and top neighboring regions, Fig. 1).
Lee (US PG Publication 2021/0258603) also teaches horizontal variation (gradientH, equation 30); and vertical variation (gradientV, equation 30).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to replace the coefficients of Ghaznavi-Youvalari with the gradients of Lee, because persons of skill in the art know that a gradient is a continuous patterns of change across pixels over space, and updating the prediction pixels based on a measured gradient engenders better prediction of the block to be coded, improving compression and quality.
Regarding Claim 11, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a first flag representing whether a linear prediction-based intra prediction is applied to the current block from a bitstream (CU level flag is signaled for this mode, Section 2),
wherein the linear prediction parameter is adaptively derived based on the first flag (it is implied that this mode will not be executed when it is not activated via the CU level flag, inferred).
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Claim(s) 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) in view of Lee (US PG Publication 2021/0258603) and Andrivon (US PG Publication 2025/0386049), evidenced by Wikipedia (“Sobel operator”).
Regarding Claim 2, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 1.
Ghaznavi-Youvalari does not disclose, but Andrivon (US PG Publication 2025/0386049) teaches wherein the horizontal variation (G-hor—horizontal gradient [0090]-[0091]) and the vertical variation (G-ver—vertical gradient [0090]-[0091]) are calculated for one or more windows (3x3 horizontal and vertical Sobel filters [0090]) within the neighboring region (template area T (composed of left, above and above-left reconstructed luma samples of reconstructed area R) [0090]), respectively.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to replace the coefficients of Ghaznavi-Youvalari with the gradients of Lee, because persons of skill in the art know that a gradient is a continuous patterns of change across pixels over space, and updating the prediction pixels based on a measured gradient engenders better prediction of the block to be coded, improving compression and quality.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to determine the gradients of Ghaznavi-Youvalari, as modified by Lee, using the Sobel operator, as in Andrivon, because the Sobel operator is a known technique already in-use for determining the gradient in the encoding standard, making it an obvious choice for implementation.
Regarding Claim 3, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 2.
Ghaznavi-Youvalari does not disclose, but Andrivon (US PG Publication 2025/0386049) teaches wherein a neighboring region for calculating the horizontal variation (3x3 horizontal and vertical Sobel filters [0090]; note horizontal gradient sobel operator is based on columns of pixels; see Wikipedia on sebel operators) and a neighboring region for calculating the vertical variation (3x3 horizontal and vertical Sobel filters [0090]; note vertical gradient sobel operator is based on rows of pixels; see Wikipedia on sebel operators) are different from each other (a row is different than a column, inherent).
Wikipedia (“Sobel operator”) provides evidence that the sobel operator is
PNG
media_image1.png
132
196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding Claim 4, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 3.
Ghaznavi-Youvalari does not disclose, but Andrivon (US PG Publication 2025/0386049) teaches wherein the horizontal variation (3x3 horizontal and vertical Sobel filters [0090]) is calculated for one or more first windows (G-hor—horizontal gradient [0090]-[0091]) belonging to at least one of the top neighboring region, the top-left neighboring region, or the top-right neighboring region (template area T (composed of left, above and above-left reconstructed luma samples of reconstructed area R) [0090]), and
wherein the vertical variation (G-ver—vertical gradient [0090]-[0091]) is calculated for one or more second windows (3x3 horizontal and vertical Sobel filters [0090]) belonging to at least one of the left neighboring region, the top-left neighboring region, or the bottom-left neighboring region (template area T (composed of left, above and above-left reconstructed luma samples of reconstructed area R) [0090]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to determine the gradients of Ghaznavi-Youvalari, as modified by Lee, using the Sobel operator, as in Andrivon, because the Sobel operator is a known technique already in-use for determining the gradient in the encoding standard, making it an obvious choice for implementation.
Regarding Claim 5, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 4.
Ghaznavi-Youvalari does not disclose, but Andrivon (US PG Publication 2025/0386049) teaches wherein the one or more first windows include at least one of a window to which a sample having a same x-coordinate as a top-left sample of the current block belongs or a window to which a sample having a same x-coordinate as a top-right sample of the current block belongs (see template and windows in Fig. 7; highlighted window W in Fig. 7 has pixels in the same row as the top row of the current block), and
wherein the one or more second windows include at least one of a window to which a sample having a same y-coordinate as the top-left sample of the current block belongs or a window to which a sample having a same y-coordinate as a bottom-left sample of the current block belongs (see template and windows in Fig. 7; another window—not highlighted—above the block will have pixels in the same column as the left column of the current block).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to determine the gradients of Ghaznavi-Youvalari, as modified by Lee, using the Sobel operator, as in Andrivon, because the Sobel operator is a known technique already in-use for determining the gradient in the encoding standard, making it an obvious choice for implementation.
Regarding Claim 6, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 4, wherein the offset is derived based on one or more samples adjacent to the current block (c in the prediction model is estimated based on the neighboring samples values’ and locations, Section 2 Proposal).
Regarding Claim 7, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 6, wherein the one or more samples adjacent to the current block include at least one of a sample having a same x-coordinate as the prediction sample or a sample having a same y-coordinate as the prediction sample (see Fig. 1: blue samples on the left are in the same row as current block samples in that row; blue samples above are in the same column as current block samples in that same column).
Regarding Claim 8, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 1.
Ghaznavi-Youvalari does not disclose, but Andrivon (US PG Publication 2025/0386049) teaches wherein the linear prediction parameter is derived based on whether the neighboring region is available for the current block (available template area [0090]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to determine the gradients of Ghaznavi-Youvalari, as modified by Lee, using the Sobel operator, as in Andrivon, because the Sobel operator is a known technique already in-use for determining the gradient in the encoding standard, making it an obvious choice for implementation.
Regarding Claim 9, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 2.
Ghaznavi-Youvalari does not disclose, but Andrivon (US PG Publication 2025/0386049) teaches wherein at least one of a width and a height of the one or more windows is greater than or equal to 3 (3x3 horizontal and vertical Sobel filters [0090]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to determine the gradients of Ghaznavi-Youvalari, as modified by Lee, using the Sobel operator, as in Andrivon, because the Sobel operator is a known technique already in-use for determining the gradient in the encoding standard, making it an obvious choice for implementation.
Regarding Claim 10, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 9, wherein any one of the width and the height of the one or more windows is equal to 1 (left samples have a width of 1, top samples have a height of 1, Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) in view of Lee (US PG Publication 2021/0258603) and Xiu (US PG Publication 2019/0166370 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) discloses the image decoding method of claim 1.
Ghaznavi-Youvalari does not disclose, but Xiu (US PG Publication 2019/0166370 A1) teaches further comprising:
obtaining a second flag representing whether the current block is a block encoded in a DIMD mode from a bitstream (CU level flag, derive_intra_prediction_mode_flag, is turned on, that is, DIMD is enabled for the current CU [0095]); and
obtaining, based on the second flag, a third flag representing whether the current block is a block encoded in a general DIMD mode from the bitstream (an additional flag may be signaled to indicate the level (e.g., PU level or TU level) at which DIMD is performed in the current CU [0095]),
wherein the linear prediction parameter is adaptively derived based on the third flag (when DIMD mode is enabled for one video block, both the derived intra prediction mode of luma component and the LM mode will be tested for the template samples [0124]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to implement linear-model mode under DIMD because Xiu teaches that chroma channel encoding can be significantly improved by relying on luma-correlation, therefore, considering linear-model mode under DIMD poses potential rate-distortion improvements and must be considered [0124].
Claim(s) 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghaznavi-Youvalari (JVET-O0404 July 2019) in view of Lee (US PG Publication 2021/0258603) and Cohen (US PG Publication 2012/0281928).
Regarding Claim 14, Cohen (US PG Publication 2012/0281928) teaches a computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream (coder encodes a bit stream or signal for compression, transmission, storage or encryption, and the decoder decodes the encoded bit stream for playback or editing [0028]). The remainder of Claim 14 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to supplement Ghaznavi-Youvalari to transmit or store the bitstream because doing so is a known technique for providing video to consumers over a network, which was typical and routinely implemented before the application was filed.
Regarding Claim 15, Cohen (US PG Publication 2012/0281928) teaches a method for transmitting data for an image (coder encodes a bit stream or signal for compression, transmission, storage or encryption, and the decoder decodes the encoded bit stream for playback or editing [0028]), comprising:
obtaining a bitstream for the image (coder encodes a bit stream [0028]);
deriving a residual sample (residual data [0014]) of the current block (prediction unit [0014]) based on the prediction sample (intra prediction [0014]), and encoding the residual sample (coder encodes [0028]);
and transmitting the data including the bitstream (for transmission [0028]).
The remainder of Claim 15 is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to supplement Ghaznavi-Youvalari to transmit or store the bitstream because doing so is a known technique for providing video to consumers over a network, which was typical and routinely implemented before the application was filed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US PG Publication 2021/0243452 A1 - Sobel horizontal and vertical operators/gradient for IPM direction
JVET-X0156-v2 - the HoG is computed using left, top, and top-left reconstructed neighbors
US PG Publication 2018/0184082-A1 – vertical planar uses some blocks, and horizontal planar uses other blocks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM - 5PM.
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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights