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 17 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 12, applicant argues that because the decoding method directly applies to the stored bitstream and because the residual information was encoded by a particular encoding method, that the bitstream has a functional relationship with the non-transitory computer readable medium that it is stored on. While applicant’s arguments are understood, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on MPEP 2111.05 and MPEP 2113 in maintaining the rejection.
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id. Additionally, patentability of a product is based on a product itself, and not its method of production. MPEP 2113. “If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
At present, claim 20 is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having an encoded bitstream comprising a representation of residual information for a video signal, the encoded bitstream decoded using a video decoding method”, followed by a plurality of decoding steps. While the decoding method may be performed by an intended computer, the decoding method is not stored on the computer readable storage medium. Rather, only bitstream data is stored on the computer readable storage medium. It is the bitstream itself, therefore, that must have a functional relationship. Because there are no recitations of the bitstream causing an intended computer to perform some function, Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the medium. Therefore, the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is decoded are not given patentable weight. Additionally, claim 20 is also directed to storage medium containing “an encoded bitstream comprising a representation of residual information for a video signal”. Because all bitstreams are encoded using an encoding method, Examiner finds this to be a product-by-process claim with the product being a computer readable storage medium storing an encoded bitstream containing residual information and the process being an encoding method. As such, it is the product itself [residual information of the bitstream stored on a computer readable medium] that determines patentability, not the process [encoding method] that created the product. The encoded residual information of the claim is therefore subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing encoded data known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Chong teaches this at least at Fig. 1 and par. 43. There, Chong teaches that the system stores a bitstream on a computer readable storage medium, the bitstream containing encoded residual information [see, e.g. Fig. 2 and pars. 84-85: depicting and describing that the bitstream contains encoded residual video data]. The rejection, therefore, is maintained.
On pages 13-17, applicant argues that there is no documentation to support official notice that 1) the selected prediction mode provides the closest match between the reference sample and the sample to be predicted, and 2) the mode that provides the closest match is the equivalent of the greatest non-integer value of the maximum subpixel offset being a greatest value of offsets between the reference samples and the samples to be predicted. While applicant’s arguments are understood, examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner relies on Chong in maintaining the rejection.
Chong first teaches that the system selects an intra prediction mode from a plurality of intra prediction modes. See, Chong, e.g. par. 53: describing that the system utilizes HEVC encoding, the HEVC encoding based on the HM coding model, the HM coding model including a plurality of intra prediction modes. Chong next teaches that the system selects an intra prediction mode from the plurality of intra prediction modes based on the mode that produces the least amount of error between the original, unencoded block and the encoded block. See, Chong, e.g. par. 83: describing that the system selects an intra prediction mode for the block from a plurality of intra prediction modes, the intra prediction mode selected based on the mode that produces the best rate distortion value, the rate distortion value determined by the amount of error between an encoded block and an original, unencoded block. In other words, the system selects the intra prediction mode that provides the closest match between the reference block indicated by the intra prediction mode and the block to be predicted. Chong further teaches that prediction is performed using sub-pixel precision. See, e.g. pars. 6 – 7: describing that the system generates a predictive block using sub-pixel precision. Because the selected prediction mode provides the closest match between the reference block and the block to be predicted, and because the system generates the predictive block with sub-pixel precision, the system must necessarily chose a prediction mode that provides the greatest non-integer [sub-pixel] value of the maximum subpixel offset [sub-pixel precision measure] as claimed. The rejection, therefore, is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
At present claim 20, is directed to “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having an encoded bitstream comprising a representation of residual information for a video signal, the encoded bitstream is to be decoded using a video decoding method”, the decoding method comprising a plurality of steps. While the decoding method may be performed by an intended computer, the decoding method is not stored on the computer readable storage medium. Rather, only bitstream data is stored on the computer readable storage medium. It is the bitstream itself, therefore, that must have a functional relationship. Because there are no recitations of the bitstream causing an intended computer to perform some function, Examiner finds that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the bitstream being stored. Therefore, the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is decoded are not given patentable weight. As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing encoded data known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application.
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.
Claim(s) 1,14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chong et al. (US 2012/01760650) (hereinafter Chong), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 1, 14, 19, and 20, Chong teaches a method of video decoding implemented by a decoding device, a decoding device comprising at least one processor and one or memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the decoding device to perform the method (e.g. par. 12: describing a memory containing instructions, and a processor in communication with the memory and upon execution of instructions is configured to perform the instructions), a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer instructions for video decoding, that when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having an encoded bitstream for a video signal, the encoded bitstream is decoded using the video decoding method, the method comprising::
Performing entropy decoding, inverse quantization and inverse transformation on a bitstream, to obtain residual information (e.g. Fig. 3 and pars. 103 – 109: depicting and describing that the system performs entropy decoding [element 70], inverse quantization [element 76] and inverse transformation [element 78] on a bitstream to obtain residual blocks [output of inverse transform, element 78]);
perform an intra-prediction process of a block comprising samples to be predicted, wherein an interpolation filter is applied to reference samples of the block during the intra-prediction process of the block (e.g. Fig. 3, element 74, and pars. 54 – 55, 60, and 103 - 110: depicting and describing that the system performs intra-prediction of a block of samples to be predicted, the prediction performed by applying an interpolation filter to reference samples during the intra prediction process), 10
wherein the interpolation filter is selected from a set of interpolation filters used for the intra prediction processes on the basis of a non-integer part of an offset between the reference samples and the samples to be predicted, wherein a size of a main reference side used in the intra-prediction process is determined according to a length of the interpolation filter and an intra-prediction mode that provides, out of a set of available intra-prediction modes, a greatest non-integer value of a maximum subpixel offset, the greatest non-integer value of the maximum subpixel offset being a greatest value of offsets between the reference samples and the samples to be predicted that occur in the intra-prediction process of the block by means of the available intra-prediction modes, and 15wherein the main reference side comprises the reference samples (e.g. 54 – 55: describing that the interpolation filter is selected based on a subpixel offset between the reference sample and the samples to be predicted, the size of the reference samples is determined based on interpolation filter length and intra-prediction mode, the intra prediction mode being one of a set of intra-prediction modes providing the closes value between the sample and the reference sample [e.g. par. 51: describing that the intra prediction mode is one of a set of intra prediction modes available, wherein it is known to those of ordinary skill in the art that the selected intra prediction mode for a block is the intra prediction mode that provides the closest match between the reference sample and the sample to be predict, wherein an intra prediction mode that provides the closest match between the reference sample and the sample to be predict is the equivalent of the greatest non-integer value of the maximum subpixel offset being a greatest value of offsets between the reference samples and the samples to be predicted that occur in the intra-prediction process of the bock by means of the available intra-prediction modes]).
Turning to claim 20, as discussed above, claim 20 has been interpreted as nonfunctional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05(III) and associated case law cited therein because claim 20 recites “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having an encoded bitstream for a video signal, the encoded bitstream is decoded using a video decoding method.” As such, claim 20 is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing data known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. In other words, the proper interpretation of claim 20 is merely a machine-readable media in which the media is merely support or carrier for the bitstream being stored wherein the bitstream stored and the way such bitstream is decoded should not be given patentable weight. Chong teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream comprising video information (Chong, e.g. Fig. 1, and par. 43: depicting and describing that the system stores a bitstream, the bitstream being stored on a computer readable storage medium [see, e.g. par. 162: describing that items stored by the system are stored on a computer readable storage medium]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2 – 4 and 15 - 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US 2012/01760650) (hereinafter Chong), as cited by applicant as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, above, and further in view of Yoo et al. (US 2022/0053213) (hereinafter Yoo), as cited by applicant in view of Zhao et al. (US 2018/0091825) (hereinafter Zhao), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Chong teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the size of the main reference side is determined as a sum of: an integer part of the greatest non-integer value of the maximum subpixel offset, a size of a side of the block, and a length of the interpolation filter,
Wherein the length of the interpolation filter is half the length of the interpolation filter.
Yoo, however, teaches an image decoding method and device:
Wherein the size of the main reference side is determined as a sum of: an integer part of the greatest non-integer value of the maximum subpixel offset, a size of a side of the block, and a length of the interpolation filter (e.g. pars. 226 – 227: describing that the reference sample size is determined as a sum of an integer value of the subpixel offset [two integer pels closest to the sub pel], a size of a side of the block [2*Width or 2*Height], and a length of the interpolation filter [SIZE-1]).
Zhao, however, teaches an image decoding method and device:
Wherein the length of the interpolation filter is half the length of the interpolation filter (e.g. pars. 129 – 131: describing that the number of the reference samples is determined as a sum of the integer part of the greatest non-integer value of the maximum subpixel offset, a size of the block, and half the length of the interpolation filter [see, e.g. par. 130: exemplifying that the number of reference samples is determined by adding 2 additional reference samples when the interpolation filter is a 4-tap filter and adds 3 additional reference samples when the interpolation filter is a 6-tap filter, being the equivalent of adding half the length of the interpolation filter]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of Yoo in order for the size of the main reference side to be determined as a sum of: an integer part of the greatest non-integer value of the maximum subpixel offset, a size of a side of the block, and a length of the interpolation filter, and by adding the teachings of Zhao in order for the length of the interpolation filter is half the length of the interpolation filter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claims 3 and 16, Chong, Yoo, and Zhao teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, and claims 14 and 15, respectively, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
Wherein the side of the block of predicted samples is a width of the block if the intra-prediction mode is greater than a vertical intra-prediction mode, VER_IDX; or the side of the block is a height of the block if the intra-prediction mode is lesser than a horizontal intra-prediction mode, HOR_IDX.
Yoo, however, teaches an image decoding method and device:
Wherein the side of the block of predicted samples is a width of the block if the intra-prediction mode is greater than a vertical intra-prediction mode, VER_IDX; or the side of the block is a height of the block if the intra-prediction mode is lesser than a horizontal intra-prediction mode, HOR_IDX (Fig. 4 and par. 108: depicting and describing that when the prediction is determined to be a vertical prediction mode, the system uses the width of the block to determine reference samples and when the prediction mode is determined to be a horizontal prediction mode, the system uses the height of the block to determine reference samples, the system determining whether a prediction mode is vertical or horizontal based on whether the prediction index is greater than or less than 34).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of Yoo in order for the side of the block of predicted samples to be a width of the block if the intra-prediction mode is greater than a vertical intra-prediction mode, VER_IDX; or the side of the block to be a height of the block if the intra-prediction mode is lesser than a horizontal intra-prediction mode, HOR_IDX. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Chong, Yoo, and Zhao teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2, and claims 14 and 15, respectively, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
Wherein, in the main reference side, values of reference samples with positions greater than a double size of the side of the block are set to be equal to a value of a sample located at the doubled size of the size of the side of the block.
Zhao, however, teaches an image decoding method and device:
Wherein, in the main reference side, values of reference samples with positions greater than a double size of the side of the block are set to be equal to a value of a sample located at the doubled size of the size of the side of the block (e.g. Fig. 11 and par. 90: depicting and describing that values of reference samples positions greater than the size of the reference sample buffer are set to be equal to the last available value in the reference sample buffer [sample p3 is beyond the size of the reference buffer and the system sets the value of p3 to the same value as p2, p2 being the closest available reference sample to p3], wherein reference sample positions greater than the size of the reference sample buffer is the equivalent of reference samples with positions greater than a double size of the side of the block).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of Zhao in order for values of reference samples with positions greater than a double size of the side of the block are set to be equal to a value of a sample located at the doubled size of the size of the side of the block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US 2012/01760650) (hereinafter Chong), as cited by applicant as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2018/0091825) (hereinafter Zhao), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Chong teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 14, respectively, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
wherein padding is performed by replicating first and/or last reference samples of the main reference side to the left and/or to the right side respectively, in particular as follows: denoting the main reference side as ref, and the size of the main reference side as refS, wherein the padding is represented as: ref[-1]=p[0], and/or ref[refS+1]= p[refS], wherein ref[-1] represents a value of the left to the main reference side, p[0] represents a value of the first reference sample of the main reference side, ref[refS+1] represents a value of the right to the main reference side, and p[refS] represents a value of the last reference sample of the main reference side (e.g. Fig. 11 and par. 124: describing that reference samples that are not available are padded by using a value of the closest available reference sample, the closest available reference sample being the available immediately before or immediately after the position of the unavailable reference sample [see, e.g. Fig. 11 and par. 90: depicting and describing that a reference sample at position p3 is beyond the size of available reference samples, the system sets the value of p3 to be the value of the closest available reference sample, the closest available reference sample being the last available reference sample, p2]).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of Zhao in order for padding to be performed by replicating first and/or last reference samples of the main reference side to the left and/or to the right side respectively, in particular as follows: denoting the main reference side as ref, and the size of the main reference side as refS, wherein the padding is represented as: ref[-1]=p[0], and/or ref[refS+1]= p[refS], wherein ref[-1] represents a value of the left to the main reference side, p[0] represents a value of the first reference sample of the main reference side, ref[refS+1] represents a value of the right to the main reference side, and p[refS] represents a value of the last reference sample of the main reference side. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US 2012/01760650) (hereinafter Chong), as cited by applicant as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 20130188702) (hereinafter Li), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 6, Chong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
wherein the interpolation filter used in the intra- prediction process is a finite impulse response filter and coefficients of the interpolation filter are fetched from a look-up table.
Li, however, teaches a video decoding method:
wherein the interpolation filter used in the intra- prediction process is a finite impulse response filter and coefficients of the interpolation filter are fetched from a look-up table (e.g. par. 21: describing that the interpolation filter is a finite impulse response filter and coefficients are fetched from a look-up table).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of Li in order for the interpolation filter used in the intra-prediction process to be a finite impulse response filter and coefficients of the interpolation filter to be fetched from a look-up table. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 7 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US 2012/01760650) (hereinafter Chong), as cited by applicant as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JVET-L0324-v2, Geert Van der Auwera et al, CE3: Intra reference sample interpolation filter selection using MDIS conditions (Test 3.1.2), Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 12th Meeting: Macau, CN, 3-12 October 2018 (hereinafter CE3), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 7, Chong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
wherein the interpolation filter used in the intra- prediction process is a 4 tap filter.
CE3, however, teaches a video decoding method:
wherein the interpolation filter used in the intra- prediction process is a 4 tap filter (e.g. abstract: describing that the interpolation filter is a 4 tap filter).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of CE3 in order for the interpolation filter used in the intra- prediction process is a 4 tap filter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 8, Chong and CE3 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
wherein the coefficients c0, c1, c2, and c3, of the interpolation filter depend on the non-integer part of the offset between the reference samples and the samples to be predicted as follows:
Non-integer part of the offset
C0
C1
C2
C3
0 (integer)
0
64
0
0
1
-1
63
2
0
2
-2
62
4
0
3
-2
60
7
-1
4
-2
58
10
-2
5
-3
57
12
-2
6
-4
56
14
-2
7
-4
55
15
-2
8
-4
54
16
-2
9
-5
53
18
-2
10
-6
52
20
-2
11
-6
49
24
-3
12
-6
46
28
-4
13
-5
44
29
-4
14
-4
42
30
-4
15
-4
39
33
-4
16 (half-pel)
-4
36
36
-4
17
-4
33
39
-4
18
-4
30
42
-4
19
-4
29
44
-5
20
-4
28
46
-6
21
-3
24
49
-6
22
-2
20
52
-6
23
-2
18
53
-5
24
-2
16
54
-4
25
-2
15
55
-4
26
-2
14
56
-4
27
-2
12
57
-3
28
-2
10
58
-2
29
-1
7
60
-2
30
0
4
62
-2
31
0
2
63
-1
Wherein the “Non-integer part of the offset” column is defined in 1/32 subpixel resolution.
CE3, however, teaches a method of decoding:
wherein the coefficients c0, c1, c2, and c3, of the interpolation filter depend on the non-integer part of the offset between the reference samples and the samples to be predicted as follows:
Non-integer part of the offset
C0
C1
C2
C3
0 (integer)
0
64
0
0
1
-1
63
2
0
2
-2
62
4
0
3
-2
60
7
-1
4
-2
58
10
-2
5
-3
57
12
-2
6
-4
56
14
-2
7
-4
55
15
-2
8
-4
54
16
-2
9
-5
53
18
-2
10
-6
52
20
-2
11
-6
49
24
-3
12
-6
46
28
-4
13
-5
44
29
-4
14
-4
42
30
-4
15
-4
39
33
-4
16 (half-pel)
-4
36
36
-4
17
-4
33
39
-4
18
-4
30
42
-4
19
-4
29
44
-5
20
-4
28
46
-6
21
-3
24
49
-6
22
-2
20
52
-6
23
-2
18
53
-5
24
-2
16
54
-4
25
-2
15
55
-4
26
-2
14
56
-4
27
-2
12
57
-3
28
-2
10
58
-2
29
-1
7
60
-2
30
0
4
62
-2
31
0
2
63
-1
Wherein the “Non-integer part of the offset” column is defined in 1/32 subpixel resolution (e.g. Section 2, table 2(c): describing a 32 phase 4-tap interpolation filter with filter taps equivalent to those in the table above, wherein each enumerated filter tap is the equivalent of the enumerated filter coefficients).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of CE3 in order for the 4-tap interpolation filter used in the intra- prediction process to have filter coefficients as described. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 9, Chong and CE3 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
wherein the coefficients c0, c1, c2, and c3, of the interpolation filter depend on the non-integer part of the offset between the reference samples and the samples to be predicted as follows:
Non-integer part of the offset
C0
C1
C2
C3
0 (integer)
16
32
16
0
1
15
29
17
3
2
15
29
17
3
3
14
29
17
3
4
13
29
18
3
5
13
28
18
4
6
13
28
19
4
7
12
28
20
4
8
11
28
20
5
9
11
27
21
5
10
10
27
22
5
11
9
27
22
6
12
9
26
23
6
13
9
26
23
6
14
8
25
24
7
15
8
25
24
7
16 (half-pel)
8
24
24
8
17
7
24
25
8
18
7
24
25
8
19
6
23
26
9
20
6
23
26
9
21
6
22
27
9
22
5
22
27
10
23
5
21
27
11
24
5
20
28
11
25
4
20
28
12
26
4
19
28
13
27
4
19
28
13
28
4
18
29
13
29
3
18
29
14
30
3
17
29
15
31
3
17
29
15
Wherein the “Non-integer part of the offset” column is defined in 1/32 subpixel resolution.
CE3, however, teaches a decoding method:
wherein the coefficients c0, c1, c2, and c3, of the interpolation filter depend on the non-integer part of the offset between the reference samples and the samples to be predicted as follows:
Non-integer part of the offset
C0
C1
C2
C3
0 (integer)
16
32
16
0
1
15
29
17
3
2
15
29
17
3
3
14
29
17
3
4
13
29
18
3
5
13
28
18
4
6
13
28
19
4
7
12
28
20
4
8
11
28
20
5
9
11
27
21
5
10
10
27
22
5
11
9
27
22
6
12
9
26
23
6
13
9
26
23
6
14
8
25
24
7
15
8
25
24
7
16 (half-pel)
8
24
24
8
17
7
24
25
8
18
7
24
25
8
19
6
23
26
9
20
6
23
26
9
21
6
22
27
9
22
5
22
27
10
23
5
21
27
11
24
5
20
28
11
25
4
20
28
12
26
4
19
28
13
27
4
19
28
13
28
4
18
29
13
29
3
18
29
14
30
3
17
29
15
31
3
17
29
15
Wherein the “Non-integer part of the offset” column is defined in 1/32 subpixel resolution (e.g. section 2, table 3(b): describing that a 32-phase 4 tap interpolation filter with filter taps as described in the table above, wherein each filter tap is the equivalent of a filter coefficient).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of CE3 in order for the 4-tap interpolation filter used in the intra- prediction process to have filter coefficients as described. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 10, Chong and CE3 teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
wherein the coefficients c0, c1, c2, and c3, of the interpolation filter depend on the non-integer part of the offset between the reference samples and the samples to be predicted as follows:
Non-integer part of the offset
C0
C1
C2
C3
0 (integer)
16
32
16
0
1
15
29
17
3
2
14
29
18
3
3
14
29
18
3
4
14
28
18
4
5
13
28
19
4
6
12
28
20
4
7
12
27
20
5
8
11
27
21
5
9
11
27
21
5
10
10
26
22
6
11
10
26
22
6
12
9
26
23
6
13
9
26
23
6
14
8
25
24
7
15
8
25
24
7
16 (half-pel)
7
25
25
7
17
7
24
25
8
18
7
24
25
8
19
6
23
26
9
20
6
23
26
9
21
6
22
26
10
22
6
22
26
10
23
5
21
27
11
24
5
21
27
11
25
5
20
27
12
26
4
20
28
12
27
4
19
28
13
28
4
18
29
14
29
3
18
29
14
30
3
18
29
14
31
3
17
29
15
Wherein the “Non-integer part of the offset” column is defined in 1/32 subpixel resolution.
CE3, however, teaches a video decoding method:
wherein the coefficients c0, c1, c2, and c3, of the interpolation filter depend on the non-integer part of the offset between the reference samples and the samples to be predicted as follows:
Non-integer part of the offset
C0
C1
C2
C3
0 (integer)
16
32
16
0
1
15
29
17
3
2
14
29
18
3
3
14
29
18
3
4
14
28
18
4
5
13
28
19
4
6
12
28
20
4
7
12
27
20
5
8
11
27
21
5
9
11
27
21
5
10
10
26
22
6
11
10
26
22
6
12
9
26
23
6
13
9
26
23
6
14
8
25
24
7
15
8
25
24
7
16 (half-pel)
7
25
25
7
17
7
24
25
8
18
7
24
25
8
19
6
23
26
9
20
6
23
26
9
21
6
22
26
10
22
6
22
26
10
23
5
21
27
11
24
5
21
27
11
25
5
20
27
12
26
4
20
28
12
27
4
19
28
13
28
4
18
29
14
29
3
18
29
14
30
3
18
29
14
31
3
17
29
15
Wherein the “Non-integer part of the offset” column is defined in 1/32 subpixel resolution (e.g. section 2, table 3(c): describing a 32-phase 4-tap interpolation filter with filter taps as disclosed above).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of CE3 in order for the 4-tap interpolation filter used in the intra- prediction process to have filter coefficients as described. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Chong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
wherein the set of filters comprises a Gauss filter and a Cubic filter.
CE3, however, teaches a video decoding method:
wherein the set of filters comprises a Gauss filter and a Cubic filter (e.g. Abstract: describing that the set of filters comprises a Gaussian filter and a cubic filter).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of CE3 in order for the interpolation filter used in the intra- prediction process is a 4 tap filter the set of filters to comprise a Gauss filter and a Cubic filter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Turning to claim 12, Chong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
wherein quantity of the interpolation filter is N, wherein the N interpolation filters are used for intra reference sample interpolation, and wherein N>=1 and N is a positive integer.
CE3, however, teaches a video decoding method:
wherein quantity of the interpolation filter is N, wherein the N interpolation filters are used for intra reference sample interpolation, and wherein N>=1 and N is a positive integer (e.g. Abstract: describing that two interpolation filters are used for intra reference sample interpolation).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of CE3 in order for the quantity of the interpolation filter to be N, wherein the N interpolation filters are used for intra reference sample interpolation, and wherein N>=1 and N is a positive integer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al. (US 2012/01760650) (hereinafter Chong), as cited by applicant as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramasubramonian et al. (US 2020/0014922) (hereinafter Ramasubramonian), as cited by applicant.
Regarding claim 13, Chong teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Chong does not explicitly teach:
wherein the reference samples include samples not adjacent to the block.
Ramasubramonian, however, teaches a video decoding method:
wherein the reference samples include samples not adjacent to the block. (e.g. pars. 20 – 21: describing that the system uses multiple reference lines during mode dependent intra smoothing, wherein using multiple reference lines inherently means that the reference samples include samples not adjacent to the block).
It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Chong by adding the teachings of Ramasubramonian in order for the reference samples include samples not adjacent to the block. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification because the modification improves coding efficiency.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-3700. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 - 5 PM AWS.
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, 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 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.
SHANIKA M. BRUMFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 2487
/SHANIKA M BRUMFIELD/Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights