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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/09/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Although the title has been amended by applicant, the title continues to be non-descriptive to which the claims are directed, i.e. in a manner in which it is still considered too broad. Proper correction is required.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Li fails to teach the claimed language, particularly stating that according to the technical features of the claim, TMRL enabled flag is a high-level enablement flag, which governs whether a TMRL mode is allowed to be used. That is, the MRL_flag as taught by Li is a block-level flag, not a higher-layer enablement flag, as it instead merely indicates whether a CU/PU “uses” the template matching based MRL.
However, reading the claims in the broadest reasonable sense, the examiner respectfully disagrees. 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., TMRL enabled flag being a high-level enablement flag) 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). As taught in ¶0120-0123 and 0127, Li teaches the use of an MRL_flag which may enable template based MRL if the value is 1 and not enable if 0. The limitations do not require or describe what level such an enablement flag should be placed in, therefore Li teaches the limitations as per currently claimed.
Therefore the rejection of claim(s) 1 is/are maintained. Regarding arguments pertaining to claim(s) 16 and 20, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 1, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Therefore the rejection of claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are maintained. Regarding claim(s) 2-15 and 17-19 the claim(s) is/are dependent upon claim(s) 1 and 16, respectively, and are still rejected under the same basis as claim(s) 1 and 16 and the arguments presented above.
TITLE
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. See MPEP 606.
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, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (“Li”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0345692).
In regards to claim 1, Li teaches a video decoding method, applied to a decoder (See ¶0018 in view of FIG. 4, 5 and 8), the video decoding method comprising:
determining a value of a template-based multiple reference line intra prediction TMRL enabled flag by decoding (See Abstract, ¶0120-0123 and 0127 wherein MRL_flag signifies that template matching based MRL is enabled; the examiner notes that even though Li refers to is as MRL_flag, it is indeed template matching based MRL, to which the instant application refers to TMRL); and
during decoding of a current block:
in a case in which the value of the TMRL enabled flag indicates that a TMRL mode is allowed to be used, allowing to decode a TMRL mode syntax element for the current block (See ¶0120-0123 wherein if MRL_flag has a value of 1, it indicates that the current CU/PU uses template matching based MRL as described); or
in a case in which the value of the TMRL enabled flag indicates that a TMRL mode is not allowed to be used, skipping decoding a TMRL mode syntax element for the current block (See ¶0120-0123 wherein when the MRL_flag has a value different from 1, the template matching based MRL is not used as described).
In regards to claim 3, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a value of a TMRL enabled flag by decoding comprises: decoding the TMRL enabled flag to obtain the value of the TMRL enabled flag (See ¶0120-0123).
In regards to claim 5, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a value of a TMRL enabled flag by decoding comprises:
decoding a template enabled flag to obtain a value of the template enabled flag (See for example ¶0027 and 0114-0116 in view of 0120-0123 wherein an initial template based intra mode derivation [TIMD] flag may be decoded to then signify whether then template matching based MRL intra prediction mode may be enabled); and
in a case in which the value of the template enabled flag indicates that a template is not allowed to be used, skipping decoding the TMRL enabled flag, and determining, by default, the value of the TMRL enabled flag to a value indicating that the TMRL mode is not allowed to be used (See for example ¶0027 and 0114-0116 in view of 0120-0123 as described above); or
in a case in which the value of the template enabled flag indicates that a template is allowed to be used, decoding the TMRL enabled flag to obtain the value of the TMRL enabled flag (See for example ¶0027 and 0114-0116 in view of 0120-0123 as described above).
In regards to claim 6, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claims 4 and 5 by Li in view of Kim wherein dependency of template matching based MRL enablement may be based upon other flags being enabled or not enabled, particularly those of template-based and/or MRL enabling flags.
In regards to claim 11, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein in a case in which the value of the TMRL enabled flag indicates that the TMRL mode is allowed to be used, the method further comprises:
determining whether a template-based intra mode derivation TIMD mode is to be used for the current block (See for example ¶0027 and 0114-0116 in view of 0120-0123 wherein an initial template based intra mode derivation [TIMD] flag may be decoded to then signify whether then template matching based MRL intra prediction mode may be enabled); and
in a case in which the TIMD mode is to be used for the current block, decoding a multiple reference line MRL index for the current block, and skipping decoding a TMRL mode syntax element for the current block (See for example ¶0027 and 0114-0116 in view of 0120-0123 as described above); or
in a case in which the TIMD mode is not to be used for the current block, decoding a TMRL mode syntax element for the current block, and skipping decoding an MRL index for the current block (See for example ¶0027 and 0114-0116 in view of 0120-0123 as described above).
In regards to claim 12, Li teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the decoding a TMRL mode syntax element for the current block comprises:
decoding a TMRL mode flag for the current block to obtain a value of the TMRL mode flag, wherein the TMRL mode flag is used for indicating whether the TMRL mode is to be used for the current block (See ¶0120-0123); and
determining, based on the value of the TMRL mode flag, whether the TMRL mode is to be used for the current block (See ¶0120-0123); and
in a case in which it is determined that the TMRL mode is to be used, decoding a TMRL mode index for the current block (See ¶0120-0123); or
in a case in which it is determined that the TMRL mode is not to be used, skipping decoding a TMRL mode index for the current block (See ¶0120-0123), wherein after the TMRL mode index for the current block is decoded (See ¶0116), the method further comprises:
constructing a candidate list of the TMRL mode for the current block (See FIG. 11A-11D wherein candidates may be seen);
determining, based on the TMRL mode index and the candidate list, a combination, selected for the current block, of an extended reference line and an intra prediction mode (See ¶0112-0116 in view of 0120-0123); and
predicting the current block based on the selected combination to obtain a predicted value for the current block (See ¶0127-0128 in view of 0112-0116).
In regards to claim 16, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Li wherein the memory and processor are taught as seen in ¶0146-0159.
In regards to claim 18, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 3 by Li.
In regards to claim 20, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 5 by Li.
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) 2 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Li”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0345692) in view of Jhu et al. (“Jhu”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0199223).
In regards to claim 2, Li fails to teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the TMRL enabled flag is a sequence-level identifier, an image-level identifier, or a slice-level identifier.
In a similar endeavor Jhu teaches wherein the TMRL enabled flag is a sequence-level identifier, an image-level identifier, or a slice-level identifier (See Table 16 [specifically, left-side of col. 33] wherein various enablement flags are set at the sequence-level [sequence parameter set], such as sps_mrl_enabled_flag, wherein it is understood that the template matching based MRL flag as taught by Li would accordingly be enabled at the sequence-level).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Jhu into Li because it allows for a decoder to receive, through a bitstream, arranged syntax elements in sequence parameter set (SPS) level as described in at least the Abstract, thus allowing for such elements at a designated level from the bitstream to be decoded.
In regards to claim 17, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Li in view of Jhu.
Claim(s) 4 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (“Li”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0345692) in view of Kim et al. (“Kim”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0224885).
In regards to claim 4, Li fails to teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining a value of a TMRL enabled flag by decoding comprises: decoding an MRL enabled flag to obtain a value of the MRL enabled flag; and in a case in which the value of the MRL enabled flag indicates that MRL is not allowed to be used, skipping decoding the TMRL enabled flag, and determining, by default, the value of the TMRL enabled flag to a value indicating that the TMRL mode is not allowed to be used; or in a case in which the value of the MRL enabled flag indicates that MRL is allowed to be used, decoding the TMRL enabled flag to obtain the value of the TMRL enabled flag.
In a similar endeavor Kim teaches decoding an MRL enabled flag to obtain a value of the MRL enabled flag (See ¶0073-0074 and 0076-0078); and
in a case in which the value of the MRL enabled flag indicates that MRL is not allowed to be used, skipping decoding the TMRL enabled flag, and determining, by default, the value of the TMRL enabled flag to a value indicating that the TMRL mode is not allowed to be used (See ¶0073-0074 in view of 0076-0078 and 0083 wherein when MRL mode is enabled or not enabled, it allows for other modes to be automatically enabled or not enabled, as such this is taken in view of Li’s teachings wherein a further extension of the MRL mode is taught, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable template-matching based MRL further upon initial MRL enablement as taught by Kim); or
in a case in which the value of the MRL enabled flag indicates that MRL is allowed to be used, decoding the TMRL enabled flag to obtain the value of the TMRL enabled flag (See ¶0073-0074 in view of 0076-0078 and 0083 wherein when MRL mode is enabled or not enabled, it allows for other modes to be automatically enabled or not enabled, as such this is taken in view of Li’s teachings wherein a further extension of the MRL mode is taught, it would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to enable template-matching based MRL further upon initial MRL enablement as taught by Kim).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Kim into Li because it allows for the enablement or not of certain modes based on other intra-modes, thus simplifying the overall decoding process when certain modes are automatically assumed to not be enabled based on an initial value of another mode.
In regards to claim 19, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 4 by Li in view of Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 13-15 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.
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 EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights