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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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) 1-4, 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao (US 2019/0364273).
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhao discloses a method of video coding, (Abstract, video coding method) the method comprising: receiving input data associated with a current block, wherein the input data comprise pixel data for the current block to be encoded at an encoder side or encoded data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side; (paragraphs 0106 and 0132, receive current block data, including pixel data of block) determining a set of joint prediction candidates, wherein each joint prediction candidate corresponds to a combination of an intra prediction mode from a group of intra prediction mode candidates and one or more reference samples in one or more reference lines from a group of reference line candidates; (paragraphs 0102-0104, set of MPM candidate modes determined, each having an intra prediction mode and selected reference line for corresponding sample) determining a target joint prediction candidate from the set of joint prediction candidates; (paragraph 0172, selected intra prediction mode and reference line determined/applied) and encoding or decoding the current block by using one or more predictors comprising the target joint prediction candidate. (Figure 14, S1430, target joint prediction candidate used to decode block)
And regarding independent claim 19, claim 19 is an apparatus claim reciting device features similar to features of claim 1, and is therefore also anticipated by Zhao for reasons similar to claim 1 above.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Zhao discloses wherein said one or more reference samples comprise one or more predicted samples or one or more reconstructed samples in one or more non-adjacent neighbouring lines of the current block. (paragraphs 0103/0104, reference line for samples may be non-adjacent)
Regarding dependent claim 3, Zhao discloses wherein said one or more reference samples further comprise one or more predicted samples or one or more reconstructed samples in an adjacent neighbouring line of the current block. (paragraphs 0103/0104, reference line for samples may be adjacent)
Regarding dependent claim 4, Zhao discloses wherein an index indicating the target joint prediction candidate from the set of joint prediction candidates is signalled at the encoder side or parsed at the decoder side. (paragraph 0126, prediction candidate parameters of reference line and prediction mode signalled)
Regarding dependent claim 11, Zhao discloses wherein the group of intra prediction mode candidates comprise all available intra prediction modes or a subset of said all available intra prediction modes. (first, this is tautology because it covers all options, and is hence non-limiting, paragraph 0125, nonzero refence line enabled for even intra prediction is a subset of available prediction modes)
Regarding dependent claim 13, Zhao discloses wherein the target joint prediction candidate is used to replace original intra prediction. (paragraph 0013 in conjunction with paragraph 0020, single tier intra prediction may be replaced by multi-line intra prediction)
Regarding dependent claim 14, Zhao discloses wherein whether the target joint prediction candidate is used to replace the original intra prediction is enabled or disabled depending on a signalled syntax or is determined implicitly. (paragraph 0020, intra prediction mode and tier of joint prediction explicitly signalled)
Regarding dependent claim 15, Zhao discloses wherein final intra prediction is selected between the target joint prediction candidate and original intra prediction. (paragraph 0013 in conjunction with paragraph 0020, single tier intra prediction may be replaced by multi-line intra prediction)
Regarding dependent claim 16, Zhao discloses wherein whether the target joint prediction candidate is used to replace the original intra prediction is enabled or disable depending on a signalled syntax or is determined implicitly. (paragraph 0020, intra prediction mode and tier of joint prediction explicitly signalled)
Regarding dependent claim 17, Zhao discloses wherein the target joint prediction candidate is used to encode or decode a chroma block of the current block, (intra prediction mode used to code chroma block) and the group of intra prediction mode candidates for chroma MRL (multiple reference lines) prediction comprise planar, vertical, horizontal, DC, one or more LM modes, chroma DM, DIMD chroma mode, diagonal (DIA), VDIA (mode 66 in 67 intra prediction modes), or any combination thereof. (shown Figure 8, vertical/horizontal/planar/DC)
Regarding dependent claim 18, Zhao discloses wherein said one or more reference samples are used for assisting determining the target joint prediction candidate. (paragraph 0017, at least one reference sample used to determine joint prediction)
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.
Claim(s) 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Kang (US 2021/0314562).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao fails to identically disclose the recited; however, Kang teaches wherein a set of indexes are mapped to the set of joint prediction candidates according to cost measurement associated with members of the set of joint prediction candidates. (paragraph 0075, rate distortion cost of the various lines are calculated, and then a selected line based on the cost is mapped to an index)
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art that a cost is determined for joint prediction candidates which are indicated by an index before the effective filing date of the instant application because such is part of the VVC standard and the VVC standard was known and notoriously used by those of skill in the art before said effective filing date as evinced by Kang. (paragraph 0075)
Regarding claim 8, Zhao fails to identically disclose the recited; however, Kang teaches wherein a target index indicating the target joint prediction candidate from the set of joint prediction candidates for the current block is signalled at the encoder side or parsed at the decoder side. (paragraph 0075, the index indicated the selected line is transmitted from encoder to decoder)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 9, Zhao fails to identically disclose the recited; however, Kang teaches wherein first K joint prediction candidates with smallest cost measurement are mapped to the set of indexes, and K is a positive integer. (paragraph 0075, K may be one, and the cost is determined for the line, and the line is mapped to the index)
Same rationale for combining and motivation as for claim 5 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Kang, in yet further view of Chiang I (US 2023/0209060).
Regarding claim 6, Zhao fails to identically disclose the recited; however, Chiang teaches wherein the cost measurement corresponds to boundary matching cost or template matching cost for members of the set of joint prediction candidates. (Abstract, boundary matching cost is a cost which may be applied to predictive coding)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that boundary matching costs may be used in predictive coding because such cost calculation was well known and commonly used as an alternative or supplement to rate distortion costs by those of skill in the art before said effective date as evinced by Chiang. (Abstract)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao in view of Chiang II (US 2025/0310519).
Regarding claim 12, Zhao fails to identically disclose the recited; however, Chiang teaches wherein the group of intra prediction mode candidates, the group of reference line candidates, or both are determined according to block size of the current block. (paragraph 0049, block size is a predicator for selecting prediction mode)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that block size may be used as a predicator for selecting prediction mode because such was well known by those of skill in the art before said effective filing date as evinced by Chiang. (paragraph 0049)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Xu (US 2022/0086447) implicates multi-tier prediction.
Urban (US 2022/0038684) implicates multi-tier prediction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
May 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights