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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
Applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to disclose newly amended limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, including “selecting between the plurality of predefined enhancement methods based upon closest match to current pixels measured as minimum distortion between the predicted block and an original block; sending the selected predefined enhancement method to a decoder”
See the rejection below for how the cited art in light of new/existing references reads on the newly amended language as well as the examiner’s interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 received 6/16/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The term “strong” with respect to filtering in response to complexity or variance metrics in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “strong” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
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(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20250227309 A1) (hereinafter Kang) in view of Agrawal et al. (US 20250175623 A1) (hereinafter Agrawal) in view of Deng et al. (US20220264124A1) (hereinafter Deng).
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses:
A computerized method for intelligent prediction enhancement of a coded video frame comprising:
predicting pixels in a video frame to generate predicted blocks; [See Kang, ¶ 0050-0058 discloses predicting pixels of a current block by using reference pixels of a neighboring block.]
transmitting the number to a decoder; [See Kang, ¶ 0082-0088 discloses decoder extracting information related to block splitting (block size, and hence pixel number).]
subtracting the enhanced prediction from the video frame; and [See Kang, ¶ 0068-0071 discloses generating a residual block by subtracting a prediction block from a current block.]
further processing the enhanced prediction. [See Kang, ¶ 0080-0085, Fig. 5 discloses performing deblocking filtering, which may be interpreted as “further processing”.]
Kang does not appear to explicitly disclose:
applying a deep neural network to enhance prediction of the predicted blocks and neighboring reconstructed pixels using a plurality of predefined enhancement methods;
selecting between the plurality of predefined enhancement methods based upon closest match to current pixels measured as minimum distortion between the predicted block and an original block;
sending the selected predefined enhancement method to a decoder;
However, Agrawal discloses:
applying a deep neural network to enhance prediction of the predicted blocks and neighboring reconstructed pixels using a plurality of predefined enhancement methods;[See Agrawal, ¶ 0055, 0066, 0068, 0091-0101, 0153-0154 discloses applying a deep neural network to enhance encoded video content. Particularly, such that the AI-based in-loop filtering module may enable adaptive filter selection (predefined enhancement methods) allows for a wider range of data variations to be managed since the AI-based modules may be trained to remove multiple types of artifacts.]
selecting between the plurality of predefined enhancement methods based upon closest match to current pixels measured as minimum distortion between the predicted block and an original block; [See Agrawal, ¶ 0055, 0066, 0068, 0080-0084, 0091-0101, 0145-0147, 0153-0154 discloses enabling adaptive filtering based on a determined content variation among each partitioned image frame, as well as performing a rate-distortion optimization and comparing distortion between a reconstructed (predicted) and an original block.]
sending the selected predefined enhancement method to a decoder; [See Agrawal, ¶ 0075 discloses transmitting bitstream information associated with the reconstructed video to a decoder. The bitstream information may include the determined offset value (e.g., offset signalling).]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Kang to add the teachings of Deng in order to enable adaptive selection of a number of reconstructed pixels based upon predicted block size.
Kang in view of Agrawal does not appear to explicitly disclose:
determining a number of reconstructed pixels adaptively based upon predicted block size;
However, Deng discloses:
determining a number of reconstructed pixels adaptively based upon predicted block size; [See Deng, ¶ 0612-0617 discloses selecting a given number of reconstructed samples based on a width and height of a predicted block (particularly, blkW and blkH corresponding with a block width and height.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Kang in view of Agrawal to add the teachings of Deng in order to enable adaptive selection of a number of reconstructed pixels based upon predicted block size.
Regarding claim 2, Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kang discloses:
wherein predicting the pixels includes at least one of an inter prediction and an intra prediction. [See Kang, ¶ 0050-0051 discloses a predictor predicting a current block to generate a prediction block, wherein a predictor includes an intra predictor and an inter predictor.]
Regarding claim 4, Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kang discloses:
further comprising determining if there are blocking artifacts present. [See Kang, ¶ 0081-0082, 0103 discloses applying a deblocking filter to remove blocking artifacts.]
Regarding claim 5, Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Kang discloses:
further comprising filtering boundaries of the predicted pixels and the neighboring reconstructed pixels when blocking artifacts are present. [See Kang, ¶ 0081-0082, 0103 discloses applying a deblocking filter at a boundary between reconstructed blocks to remove blocking artifacts.]
Regarding claim 7, Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Kang discloses:
further comprising filtering a boundary of the predicted blocks when blocking artifacts are present. [See Kang, ¶ 0081-0082, 0103 discloses applying a deblocking filter at a boundary between reconstructed blocks to remove blocking artifacts.]
Regarding claim 8, Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Deng discloses:
wherein intra prediction includes angular prediction, intra block copy and palette mode operation. [See Deng, ¶ 0570 discloses the non-inter prediction may be intra prediction, IBC, or Palette prediction.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Kang discloses:
wherein inter prediction includes block partitioning, uni-directional prediction and bi-directional prediction. [See Kang, ¶ 0051-0053, 0078 discloses inter prediction includes both unidirectional and bidirectional prediction. Further, splitting a block and signaling inter/intra prediction information.]
Regarding claim 10, Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Kang discloses:
further comprising selecting an enhancement from a predefined set of enhancements based on current pixels and transmitting the selected enhancement to the decoder. [See Kang, ¶ 0111-0117, 0133 discloses extracting feature maps that respond to higher-level features such as textures and object parts.]
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 1 for corresponding motivation statement.
Further, claim 11 recites the following limitations which are not explicitly found from claim 1, but are addressed as follows:
Kang discloses:
A computerized system for intelligent prediction enhancement of a coded video frame comprising: [See Kang, ¶ 0039-0040 discloses an encoding apparatus.]
a processing unit for predicting pixels in a video frame to generate predicted blocks; [See Kang, ¶ 0039-0040 discloses a “predictor” 120.]
a server for applying a deep neural network to enhance prediction of the predicted blocks and neighboring reconstructed pixels, determining a number of reconstructed pixels, and transmitting the number to a decoder; and [See Kang, ¶ 0040 discloses that each component of the encoding apparatus may be implemented as hardware or software or implemented as a combination of hardware and software. Further, a function of each component may be implemented as software, and a microprocessor may also be implemented to execute the function of the software corresponding to each component.]
the decoder for subtracting the enhanced prediction from the video frame, and further processing the enhanced prediction. [See Kang, ¶ 0039-0042 discloses an encoding and corresponding decoding apparatus.]
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 14, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 7, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 9, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 10, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng in view of Nam et al. (US 20180192068 A1) (hereinafter Nam).
Regarding claim 6, Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein the filter is a low pass filter when the prediction block’s texture is complex or if there is a high variance, and wherein the filter is a strong low pass filter when the prediction block’s texture is smooth.
However, Nam discloses:
wherein the filter is a low pass filter when the prediction block’s texture is complex or if there is a high variance, and wherein the filter is a strong low pass filter when the prediction block’s texture is smooth. [See Nam, ¶ 0175 discloses a filter bank may configured as a plurality of (N) filter sets. At this time, a filter bank may configured as a combination of filters such as low-pass filters, high-pass filters, all-pass filters, and band-pass filters. Also, the filter bank may include the characteristics of a filter designed according to an image direction or complexity of texture.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Kang in view of Deng to add the teachings of Nam in order to selectively apply filtering based on a complexity of texture.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng in view of Deng et al. (US 20240305824 A1) (hereinafter Deng 2).
Regarding claim 3, Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng does not appear to explicitly disclose:
further comprising generating a weighted combination of the inter prediction and the intra prediction.
However, Deng 2 discloses:
further comprising generating a weighted combination of the inter prediction and the intra prediction. [See Deng, ¶ 0067, 0265 discloses CIIP prediction, wherein an inter prediction signal is combined with an intra prediction signal. The intra and inter prediction signals are combined using weighted averaging, where the weight value is calculated depending on the coding modes of the top and left neighbouring blocks.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Kang in view of Agrawal in view of Deng to add the teachings of Deng 2 in order to enhance coding efficiency by combining an inter prediction signal with an intra prediction signal.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 EST.
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 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights