DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statements (IDS) was submitted on 10/15/2024. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 4 is objected to, because of the following informalities:
The claim contains a typographical deficiency by reciting the improper article; “…..of the second reference sample from an bitstream;“
A suggested correction is; “of the second reference sample froma bitstream;”
Double Patenting
3. Claim 1 of this Application is patentably indistinct from claims 1, of the US issued Patent No. 9,462,272, the Patent No. 11,627,325, respectively, and the claim 26 of Patent No. 10,812,803. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f) or pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.78(b).
When two or more applications filed by the same applicant contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to; http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
In The Application
Re Claim 1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, comprising:
determining an intra-prediction direction for a current block among a plurality of intra-prediction directions;
deriving a first prediction value for a current block by performing prediction based on the intra-prediction direction using, as a first reference sample, at least one of neighboring samples adjacent to the current block;
deriving a second prediction value for the current block by using, as a second reference sample, at least one of a reference sample positioned in the current block and a left upper corner sample at a left upper corner of the current block; and
deriving a final prediction value for the current block by using values obtained by applying a first weight to the first prediction value and applying a second weight to the second prediction value,
wherein the first weight and the second weight are determined based on an intra prediction mode of the current block.
The conflicting Patents recite substantively the same claim transformation and scope associated with;
An intra prediction method, or apparatus comprising:
deriving, using a decoder, a first prediction value for a current block in an image by performing directional prediction
using at least one of a neighboring sample adjacent to the current block or
at a left upper corner sample at a left upper corner of the current block;
deriving, using the decoder, a second prediction value for the current block by using a reference sample positioned within the current block; and
deriving, using the decoder, a final prediction value for the current block by
performing a weighting of the first prediction value and the second prediction value.
Although the conflicting claims are not recited by identical syntax, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application, is generic and encompassed to all that is anticipatively recited by the claims of the issued patents.
Corrective action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 does not have common inventor(s) with the art of reference.
4. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Andersson et al., (hereinafter Andersson) (US 2009/0257492) Pub. Date: Oct. 15, 2009.
Re Claim 1. Andersson discloses, an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus (Fig.20, Par.[0031]), comprising:
determining an intra-prediction direction for a current block (identifying different directions of spatial prediction Par.[0036]) among a plurality of intra-prediction directions (a method for directional intra-prediction, see Par.[0006, 0012-0014] and intra-predictor 310 in Fig. 12 or 210 in Fig. 10);
deriving a first prediction value for a current block by performing prediction based on the intra-prediction direction using, as a first reference sample, at least one of neighboring samples adjacent to the current block (performing an intra-prediction on video pixel blocks, Pars. [0003, 0004, 0012-0014, 0103] and deriving a first intra-prediction value, see Par.[0036-0037] and Fig. 4 by using a first reference of the neighboring reconstructed samples 22, 24, 26 and 28 being adjacent to the current block 20, and an left upper corner, e.g., block 24 in Fig. 14 and Par.[0037], of the neighboring blocks Par.[0044],[0046]);
deriving a second prediction value for the current block (deriving a second prediction value other than the first prediction value, Par.[0039], as illustrated in Fig.4
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and Par.[0080]) by using, as a second reference sample, at least one of a reference sample positioned in the current block and a left upper corner sample at a left upper corner of the current block (where the second reference sample is other than the first selected intra-prediction value, which could be inter or another intra-predicted value, Par.[0084] selected from the inside of the current block 32, per Fig.14 which could be DC predicted from the upper left corner sample of the block Par.[0036]); and
deriving a final prediction value for the current block (deriving a final prediction value from the first and second sum of weighted samples according to Eq. (1)
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
at Par.[0003] and deriving a final prediction value based on combining a first weighted prediction value and at least another a second weighted prediction value where the combined final predictor is represented among other combinations, an M number of intra-predictions as disclosed at Par.[0035] and Fig.1
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
) by using values obtained by applying a first weight to the first prediction value (and applying a first weighting factor to the first prediction value, Par.[0012]) and applying a second weight to the second prediction value (computing a second weighting factor for a second prediction value, Par.[0013]),
wherein the first weight and the second weight are determined based on an intra prediction mode of the current block (both intra predicted, the first intra-prediction and the second intra-prediction values Par.[0013] are weighted based on the fact that both intra-prediction values are derived for the current block being predicted in intra-prediction mode, Par.[0035], [0084]).
One of ordinary skills in the art would have found obvious at the time the invention to consider the teachings disclosed by Andersson who is predicting, in a decoder, the pixel values of a current video block by combining two or more weighted prediction values computed in intra-prediction mode (see Abstract, deriving a first Par.[0012], prediction value, and at Par.[0013], a second prediction value (Par.[0014], [0019]) where the second intra-prediction mode could be either inter on intra-predicted, (Par. Par.[0035],[0036] and Fig. 5) and further combining the first weighted prediction value and at least one further weighted prediction values (Par.[0035] and diagrams in Figs. 10 and 12), by which using a combination of known prediction methods and similar structural elements as those claimed where each element would have performed the same function as claimed and would have been recognized that the results obtained were predictable through producing similar results with limitations claimed.
Re Claim 2. Andersson discloses, the method of claim 1, wherein the deriving of the second prediction value further comprises:
determining a position of the second reference sample (determining the DC position for the reference sample Par.[0036]);
reconstructing the second reference sample of the determined position (per current block sample Fig.14); and
deriving the second prediction value using the reconstructed second reference sample (relying on the antecedent determination of the reference samples from the neighboring reconstructed samples, it is interpreted that this claim recites the derivation of a second prediction values at Step 6, in Fig.1, from the neighboring reconstructed blocks of pixels, Abstract, Par.[0013] per Fig.14, where the second prediction value can be any of an inter or intra-predicted values, Par.[0014]).
Re Claim 3. Andersson discloses, the method of claim 2, wherein the determining the position of the second reference sample determines a predetermined fixed position as the position of the second reference sample (a single fixed position selected from a single neighboring group only, Par.[0037], [0104]).
Re Claim 4. Andersson discloses, the method of claim 2, wherein the positioning of the second reference sample further comprises:
receiving position information on the position of the second reference sample from an bitstream (a second reference sample in an intra prediction mode as directional Par.[0034] or DC, received from the bitstream, Par.[0014]);
decoding the position information; and
determining a position of the second reference sample using the decoded position information (the decoder receives the information signaled from encoder regarding the prediction mode where the position information used in determining the prediction direction is signaled by encoder to decoder according to the reconstructed blocks positioned above, left or upper-left, or Par.[0036] or as intra-prediction with the direction indicating the position of the neighboring block, Par.[0037], e.g., where the position in the above-neighboring image blocks, 26 or 22 at left are used for intra-prediction, Par.[0046], [0048] Fig.14, or Par. [0067]).
Re Claim 5. Andersson discloses, the method of claim 2, wherein the determining the position of the second reference sample determines the position of the second reference sample using neighboring block information included in one or more reconstructed neighboring blocks (the second reference sample is selected from the neighboring blocks which represent the reconstructed image blocks, per Fig.14),
the one or more reconstructed neighboring blocks being blocks adjacent to the current block and the neighboring block information being at least one of partition information, prediction direction information, and quantization parameter information of the reconstructed neighboring blocks (reconstructed blocks in Fig.14 specifying a prediction direction Par.[0036], Par.[0037], [0046], having fix quantization parameters, Par.[0117]).
Re Claim 6. This claim represents the image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus at its prediction loop (Andersson: encoder at Figs.11 or 12, Par.[0072]), according to each and every limitation of the method claim 1, hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary premises mutatis mutandis.
Re Claim 7. This claim represents the non-transitory computer-readable medium storing the execution code used in performing each and every limiting steps of the encoding method claim 1 and in the same order, Andersson (a storage unit Par.[0128], [0145], Fig.10, 12) hence it is rejected on the same evidentiary premises mutatis mutandis.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon, is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as listed below;
(US 2011/0293001); (US 2011/0255598); (US 2011/0150087); (US 8,165,195); or (US 9,319,714).
See PTO-892 form. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c) to consider these references when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVE J CZEKAJ. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-6:00 Monday-Thursday and every other Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at (571)272-7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DRAMOS KALAPODAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487