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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 (Chinese Applications CN202210824946.4 filed July 14th, 2022; CN202211064188.7 filed September 1st, 2022; CN202211463044.9 filed November 21st, 2022).
The Examiner for purposes of search and consideration uses the foreign filing date of July 14th, 2022.
Election/Restrictions
The Applicant amended claim 4 to depend on claim 3 instead of claim 1 in response to the Restriction requirement made April 10th, 2026.
Applicant amended the restriction to combine Inventions I and II.
Applicant arguments are considered in view of search and consideration conducted and indication of Allowable Subject Matter (see below).
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I as amended in the reply filed on June 1st, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Applicant amended Invention II to depend on Invention I [Page 12 lines 18 – Page 13 line 12]. This is not found persuasive because the inventions were directed to divergent subject matter (see at least the different CPC Symbols given to each invention) as claim 4 does not clearly relate to the categories or pixel types in claims 2 and 3 from which claim 4 depends. However, in the sole interest to expedite prosecution, while the Examiner disagrees, the dependency change is accepted since the claims will be dependent on an Objected claim (claim 3).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7, 9 – 10, 13, and 15 – 22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions III, IV, and V, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 1st, 2026 [Page 13 lines 13 – 14].
Applicant’s election without traverse of Inventions III, IV, and V (Claims 7, 9 – 10, 13, and 15 – 22) in the reply filed on June 1st, 2026 is acknowledged.
The pending claims in the sole interest to expedite prosecutions are 1 – 6, 23, and 25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on March 27th, 2025; November 11th, 2025; February 28th, 2026; and June 1st, 2026 were filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Due to the excessively lengthy Information Disclosure Statement submitted by applicant, the examiner has given only a cursory review of the listed references. In accordance with MPEP 609.04(a), applicant is encouraged to provide a concise explanation of why the information is being submitted and how it is understood to be relevant. Concise explanations (especially those which point out the relevant pages and lines) are helpful to the Office, particularly where documents are lengthy and complex and applicant is aware of a section that is highly relevant to patentability or where a large number of documents are submitted and applicant is aware that one or more are highly relevant to patentability. Applicant is required to comply with this statement for any non-English language documents. See 37 CFR § 1.56 Duty to Disclose Information Material to Patentability.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “300” [Figure 3].
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “rY’”, “Y’”, “rC1’”, “C1’”, “rC2’”, and “C2’” [Figure 24 – The reference characters in the top row of templates / blocks that are marked with the ‘ designation].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is longer than 150 words and the second sentence uses legalese language as a copy of claim 1 rather than being in a series of brief sentences in narrative format describing the inventive concept. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The use of the terms Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, WiMax, and ZigBee [Paragraph 72], which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Interpretation – Functional Analysis
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” or a generic placeholder but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the at least one processor is configured to: …” in claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 – 6 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 23, the claimed “instruction for a video encoding” has Indefinite metes and bounds as either an intended use with no patentable weight or invokes functional analysis or is intended to carry any patentable weight.
Regarding claim 4, the claimed “and/or” has Indefinite metes and bounds regarding which limitations must be met or preformed.
Regarding claim 5, the claimed “and/or” has Indefinite metes and bounds regarding which limitations must be met or preformed.
Regarding claim 6, the claimed “and/or” has Indefinite metes and bounds regarding which limitations must be met or preformed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because:
Regarding claim 23, the claims “storage medium” may include transitory embodiments (e.g. transitory media) and is further not limiting of signals or carrier waves in implementations / embodiments which are non-statutory subject matter. The Specification while listing several “non-transitory” embodiments does not limit storage mediums to such embodiments and thus the open-ended claim including transitory media at least as well as signals or carrier waves.
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 (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.
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, 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) 1 – 2, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filippov, et al. (US PG PUB 2021/0352277 A1 referred to as “Filippov” throughout) [Cited in Applicant’s February 28th, 2026 IDS], and further in view of Xiu, et al. (US PG PUB 2020/0336738 A1 referred to as “Xiu” throughout).
Regarding claim 1, see claim 23 which is the apparatus performing the steps of the claimed method.
Regarding claim 23, Filippov sets model parameters based on templates and neighboring / reference templates to predict values in the current template / region with considerations of grouping pixels in the templates. Xiu teaches averaging considerations in comparing templates to derive model parameters / decide on models to use for predictive coding including the use of illumination compensation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Filippov with the model update and averaging grouping considerations for parameter derivation as taught by Xiu. The combination teaches
at least one storage medium, the storage medium including an instruction set for a video encoding [Filippov Paragraphs 435 – 438 (storage medium with instructions to implement functions of encoding / decoding on a processor)];
at least one processor, the at least one processor being in communication with the at least one storage medium, wherein, when executing the instruction set, the at least one processor is configured to [Filippov Paragraphs 435 – 438 (storage medium with instructions to implement functions of encoding / decoding on a processor)]:
obtain current template reconstruction data, the current template reconstruction data including reconstruction pixel data of a current template region in a current frame related to a current encoding block [Filippov Figures 17 – 21 (see in particular Figure 19 for the current potential templates and the references ones to use) as well as Paragraphs 55 – 58 and 67 – 76 (see reference regions W and H used for predicting pixel values and selecting LIC model parameters), 305 – 314 (another embodiment of left / top reference templates for the current block to use), 333 – 339 and 343 – 353 (marking available reference templates relative to the current template), and 500 – 503 (template search ranges considered for the current block and reference template for prediction)];
obtain reference template reconstruction data, the reference template reconstruction data including reconstruction pixel data of a reference template region in a reference frame related to a reference encoding block, the current template region corresponding to the reference template region [Filippov Figures 17 – 21 (see in particular Figure 19 for the current potential templates and the references ones to use) as well as Paragraphs 55 – 58 and 67 – 76 (see reference regions W and H used for predicting pixel values and selecting LIC model parameters), 305 – 314 (another embodiment of left / top reference templates for the current block to use), 333 – 339 and 343 – 353 (marking available reference templates relative to the current template where available references contain reconstructed pixels), and 500 – 503 (template search ranges considered for the current block and reference template for prediction in which reference templates are reconstructed pixels / samples)];
obtain a prediction value adjustment model of the current encoding block based on the current template reconstruction data and the reference template reconstruction data [Filippov Figures 17 – 21 (subfigures included and in particular Figures 18 – 19) as well as Paragraphs 328 – 339 (initial reference values for the model to obtain as outputs) and 343 – 353 (model derivation based on prediction value to achieve / reference samples), 500 – 503 and 514 – 523 (using mean values as the predicted value for the model derivation to generate the model / update parameters); Xiu Figures 6, 8, 12 – 14 (see the generation of the “Predi” signal for the current block / sub-block before deriving model parameters) as well as Paragraphs 93 – 98 (generate the OMBC prediction value of the block prior to generating / computing the model) and 103 – 113 (Model derivation / parameter update to achieve the predict value of the current to reference area / prediction for the current block)];
obtain an initial prediction value of the current encoding block [Filippov Figures 17 – 21 (subfigures included and in particular Figures 18 – 19) as well as Paragraphs 328 – 339 (initial reference values for the model to obtain as outputs) and 343 – 353 (model derivation based on prediction value to achieve / reference samples), 500 – 503 and 514 – 524 (using mean values as the predicted value for the model derivation to generate the model / update parameters); Xiu Figures 6, 8, 12 – 14 (see the generation of the “Predi” signal for the current block / sub-block before deriving model parameters) as well as Paragraphs 93 – 98 (generate the OMBC prediction value of the block prior to generating / computing the model)];
determine a target prediction value by adjusting, based on the initial prediction value, the initial prediction value according to the prediction value adjustment model [Filippov Figures 17 – 21 (subfigures included and in particular Figures 18 – 19) as well as Paragraphs 328 – 339 (initial reference values for the model to obtain as outputs) and 343 – 353 (model derivation based on prediction value to achieve / reference samples), 500 – 503 and 514 – 530 (using mean values as the predicted value for the model derivation to generate the model / update parameters using first / second samples as the initial and final / predicted value obtained by the derived model); Xiu Figures 6, 8, 12 – 14 (see the generation of the “Predi” signal for the current block / sub-block before deriving model parameters) as well as Paragraphs 84 – 92 (target / output of LIC model derived with initial reference target value (combinable with the means / averages from Filippov alternative taught in Paragraph 85)), 93 – 98 (generate the OMBC prediction value of the block prior to generating / computing the model), 103 – 106 (Model derivation / parameter update to achieve the predict value of the current to reference area / prediction for the current block)]; and
determine encoding data of the current encoding block based on the target prediction value [Filippov Figures 2, 17 – 18, and 21 (subfigures included and see at least reference character 270) as well as Paragraphs 220 – 221 and 225 (entropy encoding or decoding already encoded parameters / model parameters), 329 – 342 and 343 – 362 (signaling LIC / model parameters and information to be encoded by the entropy encoder)].
The motivation to combine Xiu with Filippov is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of block based coding with LIC (illumination compensation) [Xiu Paragraphs 2 – 5] in order to improve coding efficiency in comparing templates to derive LIC model parameters [Xiu Paragraphs 8 – 11 and 36 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Filippov and Xiu which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Filippov sets model parameters based on templates and neighboring / reference templates to predict values in the current template / region with considerations of grouping pixels in the templates. Xiu teaches averaging considerations in comparing templates to derive model parameters / decide on models to use for predictive coding including the use of illumination compensation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Filippov with the model update and averaging grouping considerations for parameter derivation as taught by Xiu. The combination teaches
wherein the reference template reconstruction data includes a reconstruction pixel value of each of at least one reference template pixel and the current template reconstruction data includes a reconstruction pixel value of each of at least one current template pixel [Filippov Figures 17 – 21 (see in particular Figure 19 for the current potential templates and the references ones to use) as well as Paragraphs 55 – 58 and 67 – 76 (see reference regions W and H used for predicting pixel values and selecting LIC model parameters), 305 – 314 (another embodiment of left / top reference templates for the current block to use in which the reference region is reconstructed pixels / samples), 333 – 339 and 343 – 353 (marking available reference templates relative to the current template where available references contain reconstructed pixels), 500 – 503 and 514 – 530 (template search ranges considered for the current block and reference template for prediction in which reference templates are reconstructed pixels / samples or when considering Paragraphs 514 – 530 the first and second samples / pixels in the first / second regions are obvious variants of the current and reference templates to one of ordinary skill in the art)]; and
the obtaining the prediction value adjustment model of the current encoding block based on the current template reconstruction data and the reference template reconstruction data includes [See claim 1 or claim 23 for citations for the same / similar limitation]:
determining at least one reference pixel type by classifying the at least one reference template pixel based on a preset classification rule [Filippov Figures 6 – 8, 13 – 14, and 17 – 21 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 66 – 76 (taking the mean of the pixel values in a template as a classification / categorization of the template), 324 – 330 (computing mean values for blocks / template regions), 331 – 341 (using position / location for classifying / deriving LIC model parameters), 342 – 353 and 514 – 532 (in the alternative the template regions for a reference are classified as available / not available for use in adjustment model / LIC model selection combinable with Xiu Figure 5 as well as Paragraphs 50 – 51 and 70 – 75 for availability and averaging of pixels / samples in current and reference templates); Xiu Paragraphs 76 – 79 (averaging / mean of available reference samples)];
or each of the at least one reference template pixel type [See previous and next limitations for citations as the iteration through templates (e.g. available templates and their mean / average values) would be an obvious duplication of part (MPEP2144.04 VIB) and additionally Xiu Figures 11 – 13 (subfigures included – see iterative processing to determine LIC model parameters) as well as Paragraphs 80 – 86 (see the parameter “K” of the number of blocks to process (e.g. the available blocks))],
constructing the prediction value adjustment model corresponding to the reference template pixel type based on the reference template reconstruction data in the reference template pixel type and the corresponding current template reconstruction data, wherein the corresponding current template reconstruction data includes a reconstruction pixel value of a current template pixel corresponding to a position of the reference template pixel in the current template [Filippov Figures 6 – 8, 13 – 14, and 17 – 21 (subfigures included and in particular Figures 18 – 19) as well as Paragraphs 324 – 330 (computing mean values for blocks / template regions), 331 – 341 (using position / location for classifying / deriving LIC model parameters), 342 – 353 (model derivation based on prediction value to achieve / reference samples in which available templates and the average / mean templates are used), 500 – 503 and 514 – 532 (using mean values as the predicted value for the model derivation to generate the model / update parameters using first / second samples as the initial and final / predicted value obtained by the derived model or in the alternative the template regions for a reference are classified as available / not available (obvious variants of the types claimed) for use in adjustment model / LIC model selection combinable with Xiu); Xiu Figure 5 – 6, 8, 11 – 14 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 50 – 51 and 70 – 75 (availability and averaging of pixels / samples in current and reference templates), 76 – 79 (averaging / mean of available reference samples), 84 – 92 (prediction value computed from LIC model derived with initial prediction values and available reference samples (including those averaged / mean computation taken), 93 – 98 (generate the OMBC prediction value of the block prior to generating / computing the model based on available type of template pixels) and 103 – 113 (Model derivation / parameter update to achieve the predict value of the current to reference area / prediction for the current block)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Filippov and Xiu.
Regarding claim 25, Filippov sets model parameters based on templates and neighboring / reference templates to predict values in the current template / region with considerations of grouping pixels in the templates. Xiu teaches averaging considerations in comparing templates to derive model parameters / decide on models to use for predictive coding including the use of illumination compensation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Filippov with the model update and averaging grouping considerations for parameter derivation as taught by Xiu. The combination teaches
[Examiner Note: Filippov Paragraph 149 renders obvious decoding as the inverse process of encoding and thus the decoding method is an obvious inverse of the encoding method of claim 1. Thus, encoding citations may be used to render obvious steps of the decoding process claimed.]
obtaining encoding data of a video [See next limitation for citations], and obtaining video data by performing a decoding process corresponding to an encoding process on the encoding data [Filippov Figures 2 – 3 (see at least reference characters, 21, 302, 304 (entropy decoding and a decoding process of encoding data) as well as Paragraphs 149 (decoding inverse of encoding), 223 – 226 and 232 – 238 (decoding encoded prediction data and parameters from encoding)], the encoding process including:
obtaining current template reconstruction data, the current template reconstruction data including reconstruction pixel data of a current template region in a current frame related to a current encoding block [See claim 23 “obtain current template reconstruction data …” limitation for citations as the same / similar limitation is recited];
obtaining reference template reconstruction data, the reference template reconstruction data including reconstruction pixel data of a reference template region in a reference frame related to a reference encoding block, the current template region corresponding to the reference template region [See claim 23 “obtain reference template reconstruction data …” limitation for citations as the same / similar limitation is recited];
obtaining a prediction value adjustment model of the current encoding block based on the current template reconstruction data and the reference template reconstruction data [See claim 23 “obtain a prediction value …” limitation for citations as the same / similar limitation is recited];
obtaining an initial prediction value of the current encoding block [See claim 23 “obtain an initial prediction value …” limitation for citations as the same / similar limitation is recited];
determining a target prediction value by adjusting, based on the initial prediction value, the initial prediction value according to the prediction value adjustment model [See claim 23 “determining a target prediction value…” limitation for citations as the same / similar limitation is recited]; and
determining encoding data of the current encoding block based on the target prediction value [See claim 23 “determining a target prediction value…” limitation for citations as the same / similar limitation is recited].
See claim 1 or 23 for the motivation to combine Filippov and Xiu as the decoder is performing the inverse of the encoding steps claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 3 recites a novel consideration in typing pixels in the encoding blocks using classification rules / rules for doing so (e.g. thresholding average values as disclosed in the Specification) and having a matching between the reference template type and the coding pixel type. Prior art does not fairly teach typing the current and reference templates and then matching the types to use for LIC / model derivation for prediction.
Regarding claims 4 – 6, the claims depend on claim 3 and would be similarly allowable should the 112(b) Rejection be overcome against the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zhang, et al. (US Patent #12,652,381 B2 referred to as “Zhang” throughout) in Figure 31 and in Section 2.16 of the Specification teaches using LIC models in inter prediction and template matching costs buts not match templates based on types of the templates being predicted as contemplated in the present invention (see claim 3).
Reference considered for ODP Rejections: Zeng, et al. (US PG PUB 2022/0217358 A1 referred to as “Zeng” throughout)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights