DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 05/08/2026.
In the filed response, Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17, and 18 have been amended, with Claims 1 and 10 being independent claims. Further, Claims 20-23 are newly added with Claim 20 being an independent claim. Claims 4, 13, and 19 were previously canceled.
Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18, and 20-23 have been examined and are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 05/08/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-9, filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, although the teachings of Davies overall are still believed to be pertinent. In light of Applicant’s arguments, particularly regarding the weighted combination of Davies operating within the same subset, the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, after careful consideration of the IDS documents (05/08/2026), the examiner finds Zhu EP 3509305 A1 (PTO 892), hereinafter referred to as Zhu, to be relevant in light of the amended claims given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). As further elaborated on in the office action below, the intra frame prediction diagrams presented in figs. 3-4 of Zhu, for example (and supporting text), are believed to provide reasonable support for the claimed features related to first and second subsets of predictors as claimed. Seregin et al. US 9,906,786 B2 (PTO 892) is also brought in to address normalized weighted prediction. As such, the examiner respectfully submits that the work of Zhu and Seregin, either alone or in combination, reasonably teach and/or suggest under 35 U.S.C. 103 the disclosed features of the instant claims, given their BRI. Please see office action below for details.
4. Applicant’s response and amendments related to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are acknowledged. As such, the rejections are withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s response and amendments related to the claim objections are acknowledged. As such, the objections are withdrawn.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-18, and 20-23 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu EP 3509305 A1 (IDS dated 05/08/2026), in view of Seregin et al. US 9,906,786 B2, hereinafter referred to as Zhu and Seregin, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, (Currently Amended) Given the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the following limitations, Zhu teaches and/or suggests “A method for intra prediction in video decoding, comprising: deriving, by a decoder [Zhu teaches video coding (abstract). See Seregin below regarding a video decoder], a first subset of predictors of a current video block by a first prediction process [With respect to fig. 3, for example, R1 of a first coding block can be construed as a first subset of predictors of a current block derived by a first prediction process. See 0032-0036], wherein the first subset of predictors of the current video block is a first subset of prediction samples of the current video block [Same citations as above with respect to R1]; and obtaining, by the decoder, a second subset of predictors of the current video block by a second prediction process using neighboring reconstructed samples of the current video block and the first subset of predictors [Fig. 3 further shows what can be construed as a second subset of predictors in L2 of a second coding block derived by a second prediction process, where the predictors of L2 are determined via neighboring samples in T0 as shown], wherein the second subset of predictors of the current video block is a second subset of prediction samples of the current video block [Same citations as above with respect to L2], wherein obtaining the second subset of predictors of the current video block by the second prediction process using the neighboring reconstructed samples of the current video block and the first subset of predictors 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 0036 regarding the derivations for R1 and L2, where L2 is construed as the second subset of predictors. As shown, R1 is derived based on reconstructed samples from L0 and T0, while L2 is derived based on R1 and reconstructed samples from T0. Since L2 depends on R1 and the reconstructed samples are from T0, Zhu is deemed relevant in light of the aforementioned limitations given their BRI] and wherein the second prediction process comprises obtaining the neighboring reconstructed samples based on the current video block using weighting factors [See weighting factors q and (1-q) as shown in for e.g. ¶0036 which are used for determining the prediction of R1 corresponding to a first set of predictors. Since R1 is further used in the prediction of L2 (construed as a second set of predictors), Zhu’s teachings are deemed relevant] and a normalization factor.” [Normalizing weighted prediction by dividing a weighted sum of predictions by the sum of its weights is within the level of skill in the art of video coding to ensure the final prediction is within a desired range. Since the normalization factor is not further defined, a value of 1 corresponding to q and (1-q) equal to 0.5 can apply. As such, Zhu’s teachings are deemed relevant. Nonetheless, for further support, please see Seregin below] Although Zhu’s teachings are deemed relevant, they do not explicitly teach a “decoder” and a “normalization factor” as claimed. As such, the work of Seregin from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest a “decoder” [See video decoder 30 in fig. 3] and “a normalization factor” [See ‘Norm’ in equation 2 (col. 20 lines 59-67). Also note col. 21 lines 1-26 with reference to equation 3, where ‘Norm’ is equal to the sum of the weights]
Recognizing Seregin’s teachings above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intra prediction video coding method of Zhu to add the techniques of Seregin as above in order to help improve the performance of motion compensation in a scalable extension of HEVC (e.g. col. 28 lines 39-42).
Regarding claim 2, (Original) Zhu and Seregin teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the first prediction process is one of following predictor generation processes: direct current (DC), Planar, or angular modes.” [Recognizing the limitation “one of the following…”, Zhu discloses current prediction directions dir0 and dir1 (e.g. 0036 and 0041), where said prediction directions represent angular modes]
Regarding claim 3, (Currently Amended) Zhu and Seregin teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the first subset of prediction samples of the current video block comprises at least one of following: right prediction samples or bottom prediction samples of the current video block.” [Fig. 4 depicts an example of right prediction samples L2 for coding block A. The figure also shows bottom prediction samples T3 for coding block A. Please note that each coding block can be construed as a current block]
Regarding claim 5, (Currently Amended) Zhu and Seregin teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 3, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the second subset of prediction samples of the current video block comprises prediction samples other than the first subset of predictors.” [In fig. 3, the prediction samples of L2 in the second coding block are independent of those in R1in the first coding block]
Regarding claim 6, (Original) Zhu and Seregin teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 5, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhu further teaches and/or suggests “wherein the weighting factors comprise predetermined values [See for e.g. 0037, where q is a constant which is greater than one and less than 1], and wherein the normalization factor is a sum of all the weighting factors.” [Although Zhu does not explicitly disclose a normalization factor as the sum of all the weighting factors, this is deemed within the level of skill in the art of video coding. Since the normalization factor is not further defined, Zhu’s weighting factors q and (1-q) can be equivalent (i.e. 0.5). This in turn yields a normalization factor of 1]
Regarding claim 8, (Currently Amended) Zhu and Seregin teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Zhu’s teachings are deemed relevant as noted in claim 1, Zhu does not teach “syntax elements” as recited in claim 8 for determining the prediction processes for generating the subsets of predictors. Seregin on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “further comprising: receiving syntax elements from a bitstream [See received syntax elements in fig. 3]; and determining, based on the syntax elements, a method selected as the first prediction process to generate the prediction samples in the first subset of predictors.” [fig. 3 further illustrates forwarding said syntax elements to the motion compensation unit for signaling various coding information including a prediction mode to generate prediction samples. Regarding the subset of predictors, please refer to Zhu in claim 1] The motivation for combining Zhu and Seregin has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 9, (Currently Amended) Zhu and Seregin teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although Zhu’s teachings are deemed relevant as noted in claim 1, Zhu does not teach “syntax elements” as recited in claim 9 for determining the prediction processes for generating the subsets of predictors. Seregin on the other hand from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on to teach and/or suggest “further comprising: receiving syntax elements from a bitstream; and determining, based on the syntax elements, a method selected as the second prediction process to generate the prediction samples in the second subset of predictors.” [Same as claim 8 above since Seregin illustrates receiving syntax elements for specifying coding information including a prediction mode to generate prediction samples.] The motivation for combining Zhu and Seregin has been discussed in connection with claim 1, 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 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 20, (New) claim 19 is rejected under the same art and evidentiary limitations as determined for the method Claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, (New) Zhu and Seregin teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 20, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhu further teaches and/or suggests “A method for storing a bitstream, comprising: performing the method according to claim 20 [See claim 20 above regarding the method] to generate a bitstream [Zhu teaches video coding (e.g. abstract) which includes decoding processing for generating a decompressed bitstream]; and storing the bitstream.” [Although Zhu does not explicitly refer to storing the bitstream, Zhu does teach a computer readable storage medium in 0016-0017 which contain instructions for executing the described methods. It is also within the level of skill in the art to store a bitstream for subsequent processing. Nonetheless, for explicit support, see Seregin below] To more explicitly address “storing the bitstream”, the work of Seregin from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on. [See for e.g. col. 19 lines 23-28 regarding storing decoded video in reference frame memory 82] The motivation for combining Zhu and Seregin has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 22, (New) Zhu and Seregin teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 20, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhu further teaches and/or suggests “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream formed by instructions which when executed by a computing device having one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method according to claim 20.” [Although Zhu does not explicitly refer to storing the bitstream, 0016-0017 describes a computer readable storage medium (CRM) which stores instructions for executing the described methods. It is also within the level of skill in the art that a bitstream can be stored in the CRM. Nonetheless, for explicit support, see Seregin below] To more explicitly address “storing the bitstream”, the work of Seregin from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on. [See for e.g. col 7 lines 24-61 regarding storing coded video in a CRM] The motivation for combining Zhu and Seregin has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 23, (New) Zhu and Seregin teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 20, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Zhu further teaches and/or suggests “An apparatus for intra prediction in video encoding, comprising: a non-transitory computer readable medium; and a processor, configured to perform the method according to claim 20. [Although Zhu does not explicitly address the apparatus for video encoding, Zhu does teach video coding (abstract) which implies the presence of a video encoder/decoder for performing the method described therein. Nonetheless, see Seregin below for support] To more explicitly address the foregoing, the work of Seregin from the same or similar field of endeavor is relied on. [See for e.g. col 7 lines 24-61 with reference to fig. 1] The motivation for combining Zhu and Seregin has been discussed in connection with claim 1, above.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu, in view of Seregin, and in further view of Lee et al. US 2020/0413073 A1, hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 7, (Currently Amended) Zhu and Seregin teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Although deemed relevant, Zhu and Seregin do not appear to 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 intra prediction video coding method of Zhu (e.g. abstract) along with Seregin’s weighted prediction mode (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
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