DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on 11/11/2025.
In the filed response, Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 10, 12-14, 16, and 19 have been amended, where claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent claims.
Accordingly, Claims 1-19 have been examined and are pending. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 9-11, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to prior art Filippov. Therefore, the prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, after carefully considering Applicant’s filed response and performing updated searches, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the work of prior art Davies et al. GB 2486726 A (see PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Davies, which discloses deriving first and second subsets of picture elements of a block that are predicted via a corresponding prediction strategy (i.e. first and second prediction methods), respectively. Please see below for details.
2. Based on the filed response and amendments made, the examiner finds that the claimed first and second subsets of predictors of the current block, as illustrated in fig. 5 of the instant disclosure, can be understood as corresponding to figs. 12 and 13 of Davies, respectively, where Davies employs prediction strategies that may vary between at least two subsets (S0…,Si) of block elements (i.e. samples) of a frame, where each subset Si is a subset of predictions generated by a given prediction strategy (e.g. pg. 3). For example, in fig. 12, the border pixels/samples for a top-left block of a frame can be construed as comprising one subset of predictors obtained via possible prediction directions (pg. 12 lines 13-35 and pg. 13 lines 1-6), i.e. a first prediction strategy. Further, fig. 13 illustrates how a second prediction strategy can then be applied to the interior pixels/samples (i.e. not on the border) of the same top-left block of the frame to form a second subset of predictors, which depends at least in part upon the predictors of the picture elements in the preceding subsets (pg. 3 lines 1-3). In other words Si (e.g. 2nd subset) depends on, at least in part, Si-1 (e.g. 1st subset). Since the generation of predictors in a 2nd subset depends on those in the preceding subset, these will also depend on the neighboring reconstructed samples. See for e.g. pg. 3 regarding the closed loop predictor for generating predictions for the 2nd subset. For these reasons, which are further elaborated on below, the examiner respectfully submits that the work of Davies reasonably teaches and/or suggests, either alone or in combination, all of the disclosed features of claim 1, given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). The same rationale also applies to claims 10 and 19 which recite similar limitations as found in claim 1.
3. After further considering Claim 19 (i.e. “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream to be decoded by a video decoding method, the video decoding method comprising…”), this is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps. “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 19 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by any prior art which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream. Please see details below.
4. Applicant’s response and amendments to Fig. 5 is acknowledged, and therefore the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the objection to the specification (i.e. title of the invention) is acknowledged. As such, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
6. Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the objection to claim 10 is acknowledged. As such, the objection to the claim is withdrawn.
7. Applicant’s response and amendments regarding the rejection to claims 3-7 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is acknowledged. As such, the 112 rejection is withdrawn.
8. The Examiner is available to discuss the matters of this office action to help move the Instant Application forward. Please refer to the conclusion to this office action regarding scheduling interviews.
9. In light of the foregoing, Claims 1-19 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
10. Claims 3 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “comprises at least one of followings”. It appears “followings” should read “following”. Appropriate correction is required.
11. Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 8-9 and 17-18 recite “determining, based on the syntax elements, method selected…” and “determine, based on the syntax elements, method selected…” (emphasis added), respectively. It is believed this should read “a method selected…” Appropriate correction is required.
12. Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are further objected to because of the following informalities: claims 8-9 and 17-18 recite “to generate prediction samples” (emphasis added), however, it is believed this should read “to generate the prediction samples” since the corresponding independent claims now recite “prediction samples”. Please check and update accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
13. 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 5-7 and 14-16 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.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “wherein the second subset of prediction samples of the current video block comprises prediction samples other than the neighboring reconstructed samples and the first subset of predictors” (emphasis added). Although the filed specification shows that the second subset of predictors may include prediction samples other than the bottom-right predictor as illustrated in fig. 5 (¶00120 and ¶00126), it is not entirely clear the neighboring reconstructed samples and the first subset of predictors are excluded as claimed, since it is understood the second subset is derived using the neighboring reconstructed samples or the predictors in the first subset (¶00126). For this reason, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be unequivocally ascertained.
Regarding claims 6-7, claims 6-7 depend on claim 5 and therefore include all of its features. For this reason, claims 6-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites similar limitation as claim 5 above. For this reason, claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claims 15-16, claims 15-16 depend on claim 5 and therefore include all of its features. For this reason, claims 15-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
14. 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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Davies et al. GB 2486726 A, hereinafter referred to as Davies, where Davies provides techniques for compressing video via predictors for pixel subsets of a video block to facilitate optimizing large block sizes required for effective transform coding gain at increased resolutions, and at small block sizes that are required for effective prediction (see e.g. abstract). Please see below for details.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Davies teaches and/or suggests “A method for intra prediction in video decoding, comprising: deriving, by a decoder [See decode architecture in fig. 15], a first subset of predictors of a current video block by a first prediction process, [Similar to fig. 5 of the instant disclosure, fig. 12 (and corresponding text) shows a prediction strategy based wholly on previously processed blocks can derive a pixel subset of predictors (e.g. a 1st subset) along the border of a current video block.] wherein the first subset of predictors of the current video block is a first subset of prediction samples of the current video block [Fig. 12 depicts a 1st subset of prediction pixels/samples along the border of said block. Please note, a prediction strategy may vary across subsets (pg. 3 lines 14-16) and each subset may comprise a respective row and column of said block (pg. 4 lines 6-7 and pg. 13 lines 1-6). Please refer to examiner’s response #2 for further details]: and obtaining, by the decoder [See decode architecture in fig. 15], a second subset of predictors of the current video block by a second prediction process using neighboring reconstructed samples and the first subset of predictors [See fig. 13. A prediction strategy for deriving prediction pixels/samples for the interior of the current video block (i.e. 2nd subset) use at least in part picture elements of the 1st subset, which prediction may be a directional predictor or a motion-compensated predictor (e.g. pg. 2 lines 30-32 to pg. 3 lines 1-3). Please refer to examiner’s response #2 for further details], wherein the second subset of predictors of the current video block is a second subset of prediction samples of the current video block [Fig. 13 depicts a 2nd subset of prediction pixels/samples in the interior of said block].
Regarding claim 2, (Original) Davies teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Davies further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the first prediction process is one of following predictor generation processes: direct current (DC), Planar, or angular modes.” [A prediction strategy, which can vary across subsets Si, can be employed to derive predictors for pixels/samples that are on the border of the current video block. See pg. 5 lines 5-12 (with reference to fig. 1) regarding different prediction strategies which include directional predictions (i.e. angular modes) and DC]
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) Davies teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Davies further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the first subset of prediction samples of the current video block comprises at least one of followings: right prediction samples or bottom prediction samples of the current video block the first subset of predictors generated by the first prediction process are away from the neighboring reconstructed samples. [Figs. 1 and 12, which were previously referenced to illustrate the 1st subset, do not show the prediction pixels/samples as being right prediction or bottom prediction samples. However, Davies does indicate that for certain applications, a row or column for a block can be defined as a subset (pg. 4 lines 6-7 and pg. 13 lines 1-6); hence, one skilled in the art would recognize any such row/column would include “right” prediction samples or “bottom” prediction samples of the current video block]
Regarding claim 4, (Currently Amended) Davies teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 3, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Davies further teaches and/or suggests “wherein obtaining the second subset of predictors of the current video block by the second prediction process using the neighboring reconstructed samples and the first subset of predictors [See claim 1 above] comprises: deriving the second subset of predictors by the second prediction process using a weighted sum of the first subset of predictors and the neighboring reconstructed samples.” [See for e.g. pg. 3, where a weighted sum of open loop prediction values (those based, at least partly on, picture elements in the current block construed to mean a 1st subset) and closed loop prediction values (those based on neighboring reconstructed samples) may be employed]
Regarding claim 5, (Currently Amended) Davies teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 4, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Davies further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the second subset of prediction samples of the current video block comprises prediction samples other than the neighboring reconstructed samples and the first subset of predictors [Although Davies does not appear to address the foregoing limitation, this is not clear in light of the filed specification. See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above]; or wherein the second prediction process comprises obtaining the neighboring reconstructed samples based on the current video block using weighting factors and a normalization factor.” [Recognizing the ‘or’ limitation above, please see for e.g. pg. 7 lines 30-32 with respect to forming predicted values by applying different weightings to different neighboring pixels. Although “normalization factor” is not explicitly disclosed, a skilled person in the art would recognize this corresponds to a sum of the different weightings]
Regarding claim 6, (Original) Davies teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 5, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Davies further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the weighting factors comprise predetermined values [Same as claim 5 above, where the different weightings on pg. 7 lines 30-32 can be construed as having predetermined values], and wherein the normalization factor is a sum of all the weighting factors. [Although not explicit, summing different weightings to obtain a normalized weight is within the level of skill in the art]
Regarding claim 8, (Original) Davies teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Davies further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising: receiving syntax elements from a bitstream [See decoder in fig. 15 for receiving a bitstream (pg. 14 lines 5-10)]; and determining, based on the syntax elements [Although “syntax elements” are not explicitly discussed, it would be within the level of skill in the art to make determinations for decoding video data based on signaled syntax in the received bitstream (e.g. pg. 12 lines 21-24)], method selected as the first prediction process to generate prediction samples in the first subset of predictors.” [If the prediction strategies of Davies are allowed to vary from one subset to another (e.g. pg. 3 lines 14-16), then it is believed any such indication of which strategy gets used for performing a particular prediction process must be signaled in the bitstream. As such, the foregoing teachings suggest this feature and is deemed within the level of skill in the art]
Regarding claim 9, (Original) Davies teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Davies further teaches and/or suggests “further comprising: receiving syntax elements from a bitstream; and determining, based on the syntax elements, method selected as the second prediction process to generate prediction samples in the second subset of predictors.” [Same rationale as presented in claim 8 above]
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 1.
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 19 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. US 2020/0275118 A1, hereinafter referred to as Wang, since this is a product by process claim limitation where the product is a bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream (MPEP §2113). For the reasons discussed above in examiner’s response #3, the storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 19 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Wang below which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream.
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches and/or suggests “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream to be decoded by a video decoding method, the video decoding method comprising: [For the reasons given above, please see for e.g. ¶0048 for storing encoded video data (i.e. bitstream) via a storage device. Also note ¶0250] deriving a first subset of predictors of a current video block by a first prediction process, wherein the first subset of predictors of the current video block is a first subset of prediction samples of the current video block; and obtaining a second subset of predictors of the current video block by a second prediction process using neighboring reconstructed samples and the first subset of predictors, wherein the second subset of predictors of the current video block is a second subset of prediction samples of the current video block.” [The aforementioned limitation is not given patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05(III)]
To help advance prosecution, it is recommended that “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream to be decoded by a video decoding method, the video decoding method comprising” be rewritten to also include “instructions that when executed by a processor, the instructions cause the processor to perform the method for video decoding.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davies, in view of Lee et al. US 2020/0413073 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 7, (Currently Amended) Davies teaches and/or suggests all the limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although deemed relevant, Davies does not address the features of claim 7. Lee on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “wherein the predetermined values are determined based on a horizontal or vertical distance from the neighboring reconstructed samples to the current video block.” [See ¶0136, where a weight value allocated to the reconstructed neighboring sample may represent the sample unit distance from the reconstructed reference sample to the sample to be predicted. A vertical distance is shown for e.g. in fig. 12 (e.g. ¶0147), where the weights in the weighting matrix increase from top to bottom] Given Lee’s teachings for intra prediction, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compression techniques of Davies (e.g. abstract), to add the teachings of Lee as exemplified in figs. 3-12, where the prediction error may be reduced and the accuracy of the intra prediction can be improved through the weighting sum of the first and second prediction values; hence, encoding efficiency can be improved (e.g. ¶0150).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 7.
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 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
Prosecution Insights