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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on June 23, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 6, 11 and 13 have been amended. Claim 4 has been cancelled. Accordingly, Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 11 and 13 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s submitted Amendments to the Specification have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 23, 2026. Applicant’s amendments to the claims and presented arguments have overcome the claim objections. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments see pages 8 – 10 with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KANG et al., (US 2020/0059642 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the newly discovered reference to wherein the reference sample of the unreconstructed area is derived based on a neural network model having the reference sample of the reconstructed area as input, as claimed in the amended Claims 1, 11 and 13. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below:
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG et al., (US 2020/0059642 A1) referred to as KANG hereinafter, in view of SU et al., (US 2020/0252654 A1) referred to as SU hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, KANG teaches an image decoding method (Fig. 11) comprising:
determining an intra prediction mode of a current block (Fig. 7, Par. [0202] the intra-prediction mode may include a prediction mode in all directions (omni-direction) Par. [0145] a coded block flag (CBF) Par. [0179] An intra-prediction mode of a current block may be entropy encoded/decoded by predicting (i.e. determining) an intra-prediction mode of a block present adjacent to the current block);
deriving a reference sample of an unreconstructed area (Par. [0196] the pixel (i.e. reference sample) of the unreconstructed area may be generated (i.e. deriving) using a pixel of a reference picture, Par. [0220] The decoder may determine, based on the additional information, whether the current block is predicted using the pixel of the similar area in the reference picture or is predicted using the pixel of the pre-reconstructed area (i.e. unreconstructed area) in the current picture at step S1120.); and
performing intra prediction according to the intra prediction mode based on at least one of the derived reference sample of the unreconstructed area (Fig. 11 Step 1140) or a reference sample of a reconstructed area (Fig. 11, Step 1130, Par. [0176] In order to intra-predict a current block (i.e. performing), a step of determining whether or not samples included in a reconstructed neighbor block may be used as reference samples of the current block may be performed. When a sample that is not usable as a reference sample of the current block is present, a value obtained by duplicating or performing interpolation on at least one sample value among samples included in the reconstructed neighbor block or both may be used to replace with a non-usable sample value of a sample, thus the replaced sample value is used as a reference sample of the current block), wherein the reference sample of the unreconstructed area is a reference sample of an area located at least one of a left bottom, bottom, right bottom, right or right top of the current block (Par. [0195], The unreconstructed area may be, for example, at least one of the right, lower, lower left, and lower right neighbor areas of the current block).
KANG does not specifically teach a neural network model. Therefore, KANG fails to explicitly teach the reference sample of the unreconstructed area is derived based on a neural network model having the reference sample of the reconstructed area as input.
However, SU teaches the reference sample of the unreconstructed area is derived based on a neural network model having the reference sample of the reconstructed area as input (Par. [0047] FIG. 5 illustrates an example of applying NN 510 to the reconstructed signal. In FIG. 5, the input of NN 510 is reconstructed pixels from REC 128. The output of NN is the NN-filtered reconstructed pixels, which can be further processed by de-blocking filter (i.e., DF 130), where the NN mentioned can be any NN variations, such as CNN (convolutional neural network), DNN (deep fully-connected feed-forward neural network), RNN (recurrent neural network), or GAN (generative adversarial network) see Par. [0044]).
References KANG and SU are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying using neural network as taught by SU in the invention of KANG in order to achieve a better performance compared to traditional image processing methods (See Sue, Par. [0012]).
Regarding Claim 3, KANG in view of SU teaches claim 1. KANG further teaches wherein the reference sample of the unreconstructed area is derived (Par. [0211], intra prediction of the current block may be performed using the pixel of the similar area (i.e. matching block) in the reference picture in addition to the pre-reconstructed area (i.e. unreconstructed area) of the current picture, Step 1120 and Step 1140) based on neighboring samples of a matching block (Fig. 9(b) similar area of current block (i.e. .matching block)) in a current picture indicated by motion information of the current block (Par. [0210] The similar area in the reference picture may be specified based on prediction information (e.g., a motion vector) (i.e. motion information) of the current block).
Regarding Claim 5, KANG in view of SU teaches claim 1. KANG further teaches wherein the intra prediction mode is determined to be any one of a planar mode, a vertical planar mode, a horizontal planar mode, a DC mode or an angular mode (Par. [0174], An intra-prediction mode may be a non-angular mode or an angular mode. The non-angular mode may be a DC mode or a planar mode, and the angular mode may be a prediction mode having a specific direction or angle).
Regarding Claim 10, KANG in view of SU teaches claim 5. KANG further teaches wherein the determining the intra prediction mode comprises: parsing a planar flag (Par. [0318], The decoder may parse the Inter_Planar_flag (i.e. planar flag) included in the CU or the PU); and determining the intra prediction mode by parsing any one of planar mode information and intra prediction mode information according to the planar flag (Par. [0318] When the Inter_Planar_flag indicates false, Intra_Planar prediction is performed on the current block).
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations are similar to those treated in the above rejection of claim 1, and is met by the reference as discussed above. Claim 11 however recite an encoding method, rather than a decoding method, which is similar in structure expect in reverse operation. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding Claims 4 and 12, they have been cancelled.
Regarding Claim 13, it has limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection of claim 1, and is met by the references as discussed above. Claim 13 however also recites transmitting the bitstream (See KANG, Par. [0003] Image data may be effectively compressed by using such image compression technology, and may be transmitted or stored. Par. [0133] encoding apparatus 100 may generate a bitstream through encoding the input image, and output the generated bitstream. The generated bitstream may be stored in a computer readable recording medium, or may be streamed through a wired/wireless transmission medium).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG et al., (US 2020/0059642 A1), in view of SU et al., (US 2020/0252654 A1), and in further view of SIM (US 2019/0158827 A1) referred to as SIM hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 2, KANG in view of SU teaches claim 1. KANG further teaches the reference sample of the unreconstructed area is derived (Par. [0211], intra prediction of the current block may be performed using the pixel of the similar area in the reference picture in addition to the pre-reconstructed area (i.e. unreconstructed area) of the current picture, Step 1120 and Step 1140) based on neighboring samples of a matching block searched by performing matching (Par. [0210], the similar area in the reference picture may be searched by comparing similarity of the neighbor pixel of the current block and the pixel in the reference picture).
KANG in view of SU does not specifically teach template matching. Therefore, KANG in view of SU fails to explicitly teach the reference sample of the unreconstructed area is derived based on neighboring samples of a matching block searched by performing template matching.
However, SIM teaches the reference sample of the unreconstructed area is derived based on neighboring samples of a matching block searched by performing template matching (Par. [0146] the motion vector may be determined on the basis of template matching. The template matching is a process of specifying the nearby region (hereinafter, referred to as “a template”) of the current block and searching for a block having a most similar template to the template of the current block. The search may be performed on the entire or a part of a pre-reconstructed region (i.e. unreconstructed area) within the current picture).
References KANG, SU and SIM are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying template matching as taught by SIM in the inventions of KANG and SU in order to specify the nearby region of the current block for the most similar block (See SIM, Par. [0146]).
Claims 6 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG et al., (US 2020/0059642 A1), in view of SU et al., (US 2020/0252654 A1), and in further view of RACAPE et al., (US 2022/0021871 A1) referred to as RACAPE hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 6, KANG in view of SU teaches claim 5. While KANG further discloses planar mode in Par. [0178] using a weighted sum of an upper and left side reference sample of a current sample, and a right upper side and left lower side reference sample of the current block, KANG in view of SU does not explicitly teach a reference sample of an unreconstructed area corresponding to the bottom and a reference sample of an unreconstructed area corresponding to the right.
However, RACAPE teaches when the intra prediction mode is determined to be a planar mode (Par. [0041] The PLANAR mode (indexed as mode 0) consists of averaging of two interpolations: a horizontal interpolation between the reference samples on the left and the top-right reference sample (that is, the reference sample at (W,−1)), and a vertical interpolation between the reference samples on the top and the bottom-left reference sample (that is, the reference sample at (−1,H))), intra prediction is performed based on a reference sample of a reconstructed area corresponding to the top of a current pixel, a reference sample of a reconstructed area corresponding to the left, a reference sample of an un reconstructed area corresponding to the bottom and a reference sample of an unreconstructed area corresponding to the right (Par. [0049], in the PLANAR mode, using the reference samples on the top and the left (i.e. reconstructed area), and the “estimated” reference samples on the right and the bottom (i.e. unreconstructed area), of the block)).
References KANG, SU and RACAPE are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying planar mode using a reference sample corresponding to the bottom and the right sides as taught by RACAPE in the inventions of KANG and SU in order that the estimated or extrapolated reference pixels from right and below a block can be used based on other pixels around the block (See RACAPE, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 7, KANG in view of SU teaches claim 5. While KANG further discloses planar mode in Par. [0178] using a weighted sum of an upper and left side reference sample of a current sample, and a right upper side and left lower side reference sample of the current block, KANG in view of SU does not explicitly teach a vertical planar mode using a reference sample of an unreconstructed area corresponding to the bottom.
However, RACAPE teaches when the intra prediction mode is determined to be a vertical planar mode (Fig. 5, Par. [0046] The planar_vertical mode), intra prediction is performed based on a reference sample of a reconstructed area corresponding to the top of a current pixel and a reference sample of an unreconstructed area corresponding to the bottom (Par. [0045], In the planar_vertical mode, using the bottom_left reference sample R(−1,H) (i.e. unreconstructed bottom), and the reference samples on the top of the target block R(x,−1) (i.e. reconstructed top)).
References KANG, SU and RACAPE are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying vertical planar mode using a reference sample corresponding to the bottom as taught by RACAPE in the inventions of KANG and SU in order that the estimated or extrapolated reference pixels from the below a block can be used based on other pixels around the block (See RACAPE, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 8, KANG in view of SU teaches claim 5. While KANG further discloses planar mode in Par. [0178] using a weighted sum of an upper and left side reference sample of a current sample, and a right upper side and left lower side reference sample of the current block, KANG in view of SU does not explicitly teach a horizontal planar mode using a reference sample of an unreconstructed area corresponding to the right.
However, RACAPE teaches when the intra prediction mode is determined to be a horizontal planar mode (Fig. 4, Par. [0043] The planar_horizontal mode), intra prediction is performed based on a reference sample of a reconstructed area corresponding to the left of a current pixel and a reference sample of an unreconstructed area corresponding to the right (Par. [0042], using the top-right reference sample R(W,−1) (i.e. unreconstructed right), and the reference samples on the left of the target block, R(−1,y) (i.e. reconstructed left)).
References KANG, SU and RACAPE are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying planar mode using a reference sample corresponding to the right side as taught by RACAPE in the inventions of KANG and SU in order that the estimated or extrapolated reference pixels from the right of a block can be used based on other pixels around the block (See RACAPE, Abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG et al., (US 2020/0059642 A1), in view of SU et al., (US 2020/0252654 A1), and in further view of JEON et al., (US 2019/0089980 A1) referred to as JEON hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 9, KANG in view of SU teaches claim 5. While KANG further discloses DC mode in Par. [0178] using an average value of upper side and left side reference samples of the current block and further in Par. [0222] In a DC mode (hereinafter, referred to as “intra DC” or “Intra_DC”) using the pixel of the pre-reconstructed area in the current picture, left and upper neighbor pixels of the current block are used, KANG does not specifically teach a location of the samples. Therefore, KANG in view of SU fails to explicitly teach a DC mode using a reference sample of a reconstructed area located at the top of the current block, a reference sample of a reconstructed area located at the left, a reference sample of an unreconstructed area located at the bottom and a reference sample of an unreconstructed area located at the right.
However, JEON teaches when the intra prediction mode is determined to be a DC mode (Fig. 5, Par. [0115], an intra prediction method using an advanced DC mode), intra prediction is performed based on a reference sample of a reconstructed area located at the top of the current block, a reference sample of a reconstructed area located at the left, a reference sample of an unreconstructed area located at the bottom and a reference sample of an unreconstructed area located at the right (Par. [0119] The predicted values of the pixels included in the remaining prediction unit other than the n-th row and the n-th column are derived by performing bidirectional linear prediction on the basis of the top reference pixels 545 (i.e. a reconstructed area located at the top) located on the top in the vertical direction, the left reference pixels 550 (i.e. a reconstructed area located at the left), the generated predicted values of the pixels 555 (i.e. a reference sample of an unreconstructed area located at the bottom) included in the n-th row, and the generated predicted values of the pixels 557 (i.e. a reference sample of an unreconstructed area located at the right) included in the n-th column (560)).
References KANG, SU and JEON are considered to be analogous art because they relate to video coding. Therefore, it would be obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifying DC mode using reconstructed reference samples corresponding to the top and left sides and reference samples corresponding to the right and bottom sides as taught by JEON in the inventions of KANG and SU so that when a reference pixel is not available, the reference pixel information not available can be replaced with at least one reference pixel of the available reference pixels (See JEON, [0064]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to SUSAN E HODGES whose telephone number is (571)270-0498. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian T. Pendleton, can be reached on (571) . 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.
/Susan E. Hodges/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights