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 Amendment
In the response filed 05/17/2026, applicant amended claim 12 and cancelled claim 13. Therefore, claims 1-12 are currently pending.
Of note, on page 5 of 8 of the submission, applicant alludes to an amendment of claim 1. This did not appear to be the case and the examiner proceeded with examination as if no amendments were made to claim 1. If proposed amendments to claim 1 are believe to put the application in condition for allowance, an Interview is welcomed.
Response to Arguments
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
The examiner thanks the applicant for their attention to this matter and due to amendment, the claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are hereby withdrawn.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
The examiner thanks the applicant for their attention to this matter and due to cancellation, the claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 are hereby withdrawn.
Claims Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102
Applicant's arguments filed 05/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., independency of enabling flags) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 merely discusses coding tool enabling information at a higher level commensurate with that of Chang et al... That said, the examiner does agree this feature is not present in Chang and if incorporated properly into the claim and not merely implied as a feature gleaned from the specification, it would most likely overcome the prior art.
As cited above, the examiner does fully appreciate BRI in light of the specification but believes this reading is a bridge too far and would constitute an undue limiting of ‘tool enabling information.’
Further, the examiner was not alleging the blending process was a selection criterion but merely a descriptor of the functionality of said template-matching coding tool.
Therefore, in order for the claimed invention to realize the stated benefit of improved signaling efficiency, the very mechanism envisaged (i.e., the contribution over the prior art) must be part of the claimed invention.
The remaining claims either do not fix the deficiency or are addressed by the response above.
Therefore, the rejections are maintained and reproduced below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chang et al., (US Patent No. 12,323,580 B2) referred to as CHANG hereinafter.
Regarding claim 1, CHANG shows an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus (FIG. 8, generally), the image decoding method comprising:
determining a prediction mode of a current block (Col. 25, line 64 - Col. 26, line 6 describes obtaining prediction information, which is also being interpreted as including mode of a current block.):
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the prediction mode (Col. 25, line 64 - Col. 26, line 6 describes calculating a prediction block for the current block.); and reconstructing the current block based on the prediction block (Col. 26, lines 5-10 describe reconstructing a block. The 3rd paragraph of the Summary also discloses reconstructing the block.), wherein the prediction mode is determined based on template matching-based coding tool enabling information (Col. 26 describes how it is determined that OBMC is enabled, which is the template-based matching tool, wherein the 'templates' are represented by the various blending processes.).
Regarding claim 2, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes template matching-based screen content coding tool enabling information.
Regarding claim 3, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 2 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes intra block copy enabling information or intra template matching enabling information.
Regarding claim 4, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes template matching-based inter coding tool enabling information (Col. 1, lines 55-60 disclose generally how OBMC is an inter-based prediction tool and therefore the information shown in claim 1 would naturally be inter-based.).
Regarding claim 5, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 4 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes at least one of OBMC enabling information (Title, Abstract indicate the entire disclosed invention is geared toward OBMC among others.), ARMC enabling information, AMVP enabling information (Col. 11, lines 31-33), merge enabling information (Col. 11, lines 31-33).
Regarding claim 6, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes template matching-based intra coding tool enabling information (Col. 13, lines 5-7 disclose signaling inter- or intra-prediction modes.).
Regarding claim 7, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 6 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information includes at least one of intra block copy enabling information (Col. 18, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 8, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 1 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information is obtained from a bitstream (Col. 3, lines 38-40 describes how the information is contained within a bitstream.).
Regarding claim 9, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 8 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information is included in one of a video parameter set, a sequence parameter set, a picture parameter set, a slice header or a picture header (Col. 12, lines 41-48).
Regarding claim 10, CHANG shows an image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, the image encoding method comprising:
determining a prediction mode of a current block (Col. 11, lines 12-15):
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the prediction mode (Col. 11, lines 50-65 disclose the general process.); and
reconstructing the current block based on the prediction block (Col. 15, lines 55-57 disclose encoder-side reconstruction.),
wherein the prediction mode is determined based on template matching-based coding tool enabling information (Col. 26 describes how it is determined that OBMC is enabled, which is the template-based matching tool, wherein the 'templates' are represented by the various blending processes.).
Regarding claim 11, CHANG shows the limitations of claim 10 as applied above, and further shows wherein the template matching-based coding tool enabling information is encoded in a bitstream (Col. 3, lines 38-40 describes how the information is contained within a bitstream.).
Regarding claim 12, CHANG shows a method of transmitting a bitstream comprising:
transmitting a bitstream (Various portions of column 32 disclose the general task of transmitting this type of data.) generated by an image encoding method,
wherein the image encoding method comprises:
determining a prediction mode of a current block (Col. 11, lines 12-15):
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the prediction mode (Col. 11, lines 50-65 disclose the general process.); and
reconstructing the current block based on the prediction block (Col. 15, lines 55-57 disclose encoder-side reconstruction.),
wherein the prediction mode is determined based on template matching-based coding tool enabling information (Col. 26 describes how it is determined that OBMC is enabled, which is the template-based matching tool, wherein the 'templates' are represented by the various blending processes.).
Regarding claim 13, a bit stream generated by a method of claim 10 is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 13 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by CHANG which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Col. 32, lines 25-40).
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 JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights