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 10 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The double patenting rejecting has been withdrawn in view of the TD filed.
Regarding the arguments on page 3, it is stated that “With respect to the first, the cited inventions (Helle and Jeong) only disclose that an intra prediction mode for generating a prediction sample of a sub-block is derived from a neighboring block adjacent to the sub-block, not a neighboring block of a parent block of the sub-block. Accordingly, instead of predicting sub-blocks using the same prediction mode, each sub-block is predicted using a prediction mode obtained for the each sub-block (Prediction modes of sub- blocks can be different). Therefore, the cited inventions does not disclose the first point above.”.
However, the examiner disagrees and asserts that Helle discloses that the decoder 80 may be configured to determine the set of coding parameter candidates for a non-first partition 60 based on the coding parameters (coding modes) associated with previously decoded partitions neighboring the respective non-first partition [40,53,61,138]. If the partitions in fig. 6 and the neighboring blocks of fig. 12 are used, this would include the claimed neighboring blocks. The examiner is unclear on “each sub-block is predicted using a prediction mode obtained for the each sub-block”.
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., parent block of the sub-block) 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).
Regarding the arguments on page 4, it is stated that “However, neighboring blocks T, L are different from a rightmost neighboring block among top neighboring blocks (neighboring block 2 of 1704 of FIG. 17B of the present application) adjacent to the current coding block and a bottommost neighboring block among left neighboring blocks (neighboring block 1 of 1704 of FIG. 17B of the present application) adjacent to the current coding block. See annotated Fig. 17B of the present application below.”.
However, the examiner disagrees and asserts that the plain meaning of adjacent from Merriam-Webster is “having a common endpoint or border”. These blocks share a vertex which would mean they share an endpoint. The examiner suggests adding a limitation into the claim that specifies that the blocks share a border and a vertex or point.
Therefore, the rejection, as set forth in the previous office action, stands.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helle US 20130287116 in view of Jeong US 20150350640.
Regarding claim 14, Helle meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method of decoding an image signal, comprising:
dividing a current coding block into a plurality of sub-blocks, the plurality of sub-blocks including a first sub-block and a second sub-block (i.e. video encoder/decoder may partition a coding block of a CU into one or more prediction blocks (sub-blocks).) [paragraphs 30; fig. 6,7];
generating a prediction sample of the first sub-block by using an intra prediction mode derived from a neighboring sample, the neighboring sample including at least one of a rightmost neighboring pixel among top neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block or a bottommost neighboring pixel among left neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block (i.e. prediction parameters of neighboring blocks used in generating a prediction sample. Neighboring blocks include a rightmost top neighboring pixel B0 and bottommost left neighboring pixel A0.) [paragraph 40,53; fig. 12]; and
generating a prediction sample of the second sub-block by using the intra prediction mode used to generate the prediction sample of the first sub-block (i.e. All the partitions having been coded prior to partition 60 may, thus, serve the basis for the determination of the set of coding parameter candidates for any of the subsequent partitions, such as partition 60 in case of FIG. 2.) [paragraph 40,53; fig. 4,12],
wherein the first sub-block includes a top-left pixel in the current coding block (i.e. partition 0 is the first sub-block and contains a top left pixel of the current block) [paragraph 56-58; fig. 2,6,7,12],
wherein the second sub-block includes a bottom-right pixel in the current coding block (i.e. partition 1 or 3 could be the second sub-block and contains a bottom-right pixel of the current block) [paragraph 56-58; fig. 2,6,7,12], and
wherein a size of the second sub-block is 1/4 of a size of the current coding block (i.e. partition 3 shown in fig. 6 is ¼ the size of the CU) [paragraph 56; fig. 2,6,7].
Helle do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
generating a prediction sample of the first sub-block by using an intra prediction mode derived from a neighboring block, the neighboring block including at least one of a rightmost neighboring block among top neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block or a bottommost neighboring block among left neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block; and
However, in the same field of endeavor Jeong discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
generating a prediction sample of the first sub-block by using an intra prediction mode derived from a neighboring block, the neighboring block including at least one of a rightmost neighboring block among top neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block or a bottommost neighboring block among left neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block (i.e. intra mode prediction using a rightmost or bottommost neighboring blocks.) [166,168,191; fig. 16]; and
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Helle with Jeong to generate a prediction sample of the first sub-block by using an intra prediction mode derived from a neighboring block, the neighboring block including at least one of a rightmost neighboring block among top neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block or a bottommost neighboring block among left neighboring blocks adjacent to the current coding block
It would be advantageous because "The present invention is directed to providing an intra-prediction method that increases the accuracy of intra-prediction to enhance encoding efficiency.” [10].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Helle with Jeong to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Helle disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein a division type of the division of the current coding block is determined based on division type information signaled from a bitstream (i.e. decoder decodes a bitstreams signaling one of supported partitioning patterns.) [paragraph 7].
Regarding claim 16, Helle meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 15, wherein the division type of the division of the current coding block includes dividing the current coding block into 1/4 size (i.e. PART_NxN is a division where each PU is 1/4) [fig. 6].
Regarding claim 17, Helle meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The method of claim 16, wherein whether to divide the current coding block is determined based on mode information signaled from the bitstream (i.e. a non-partitioning mode is included in the bitstream 30) [paragraph 29].
Claim 18 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 14. This is the encoder of claim 14. The corresponding encoder of claim 14 is shown in fig. 4 [paragraph 46-47; fig. 4]. Encoders and decoders are known to perform the inverse operations.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 18.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights