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 submitted on 3/18/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/18/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Choi et al. (US 20220201279 A1).
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (WO 2022222990 A1) (hereinafter Deng) in view of Choi et al. (US 20220201279 A1) (hereinafter Choi).
Regarding claim 1, Deng discloses:
A method for performing combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP), comprising: [See Deng, abstract, ¶ 0046 discloses a mode selection unit which selects a combination of intra and inter prediction (CIIP) modes in which a prediction is based on inter prediction and intra prediction signals.]
determining whether the CIIP is enabled for a target block; [See Deng, ¶ 0072, Section 2.3 Combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) discloses a flag signaled to indicate if a combined inter/intra prediction (CIIP) mode is applied to a current coding unit (CU).]
Deng does not appear to explicitly disclose:
in response to the CIIP being enabled, determining a first intra prediction mode of the target block based on a plurality of adjacent samples of the target block;
generating an intra predictor of the target block with the first intra prediction mode; and
obtaining a final predictor of the target block by weighted averaging the intra predictor of the target block and an inter predictor of the target block.
However, Choi discloses:
in response to the CIIP being enabled, determining a first intra prediction mode of the target block based on a plurality of adjacent samples of the target block; [See Choi, ¶ 0148-0157 discloses that when the CIIP is applied to the current block, an intra prediction mode of the current block may be derived, and a first prediction sample of the current block may be derived based on the intra prediction mode. The intra prediction mode of the current block when the CIIP is applied may be derived based on two syntax elements. For example, one of up to four intra prediction modes may be used as the intra prediction mode. The four intra prediction modes may include a DC intra prediction mode, a planar intra prediction mode, a horizontal intra prediction mode, and/or a vertical intra prediction mode. In CIIP for the luma component, up to four intra prediction modes including a DC intra prediction mode, a planar intra prediction mode, a horizontal intra prediction mode, and a vertical intra prediction mode may be used. Also, for example, when the width of the current block is more than two times of the height, the vertical intra prediction mode may not be available. In this case, only three intra prediction modes are available. Also, for example, when the height of the current block is more than two times of the width, the vertical intra prediction mode may not be available. In this case, only three intra prediction modes are available. When the CIIP is applied to the current block, the intra prediction mode of the current block may be derived as follows. For example, a Most Probable Mode (MPM) list including MPM candidates for the current block may be constructed as follows. For example, the MPM list may include three MPM candidates. Particularly, examples are noted: 1) when an intra prediction mode of block X is the DC intra prediction mode or the planar intra prediction mode, intraModeX may be set to the intra prediction mode of the block X, that is, the DC intra prediction mode or the planar intra prediction mode, or 2) when the intra prediction mode of block X is is a vertical-like directional intra prediction mode (that is, intra prediction modes #35 to #66), intraModeX may be set to the vertical intra prediction mode, or 3) when the intra prediction mode of block X is is a horizontal-like directional intra prediction mode (that is, intra prediction modes #2 to #34), intraModeX may be set to the horizontal intra prediction mode. Hence, neighboring samples of the current block are analyzed and an intra prediction mode determined therefrom.]
generating an intra predictor of the target block with the first intra prediction mode; and [See Choi, Fig. 5 illustrates performing prediction (generating prediction samples as a result of determining intra prediction mode/type.]
obtaining a final predictor of the target block by weighted averaging the intra predictor of the target block and an inter predictor of the target block. [See Choi, ¶ 0148 discloses emplying combined Inter and Intra Prediction (CIIP). The CIIP may represent a process of deriving a prediction sample of the current block based on inter prediction and intra prediction. For example, when the CIIP is applied to the current block, an intra prediction mode of the current block may be derived, and a first prediction sample of the current block may be derived based on the intra prediction mode. Thereafter, a second prediction sample of the current block may be derived by performing inter prediction on the current block, and the prediction sample of the current block may be derived by weighted summing (i.e., weighted averaging) the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Deng to add the teachings of Choi in order to derive an intra prediction mode for CIIP based on neighboring samples.
Regarding claim 8, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Further, claim 8 recites the following limitations which are not explicitly found from claim 1, but are addressed as follows:
Deng discloses:
A method for performing combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP), comprising:
signaling a flag indicating the CIIP being enabled. [See Deng, ¶ 0072, Section 2.3 Combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) discloses a flag signaled to indicate if a combined inter/intra prediction (CIIP) mode is applied to a current coding unit (CU).]
Regarding claim 15, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 in the form of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” rather than “a method”, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Further, claim 15 recites the following limitations which are not explicitly found from claim 1, but are addressed as follows:
Deng discloses:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a system to cause the system to perform operations for generating a bitstream, the operations comprising: [See Deng, ¶ 0006-0008 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing instructions for performing a video coding method.]
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Choi in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2022253319 A1) (hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 2, Deng in view of Choi discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Deng discloses:
wherein determining the first intra prediction mode of the target block based on the plurality of adjacent samples of the target block further comprises:
obtaining predicted values of the plurality of adjacent samples using a plurality of intra prediction modes; See Deng, ¶ 0055 discloses intra prediction unit 206 may generate prediction data for the current video block; See Deng, ¶ 0070 discloses intra prediction unit 303 may use intra prediction modes to form a prediction block.]
Deng in view of Choi does not appear to explicitly disclose:
calculating differences between the predicted values and reconstructed values of the plurality of adjacent samples; and
determining the first intra prediction mode from the plurality of intra prediction modes based on the differences.
However, Zhang discloses:
calculating differences between the predicted values and reconstructed values of the plurality of adjacent samples; and [See Zhang, ¶ 0102 Section 2.29, “Template-based Intra mode derivation (TIMD) using MPMs discloses that a sum of absolute transformed differences (SATD) between the prediction and reconstruction samples of a template is calculated. An intra prediction mode with the minimum SATD is selected as the TIMD mode and used for intra prediction of current CU.
determining the first intra prediction mode from the plurality of intra prediction modes based on the differences. [See Zhang, ¶ 0102 Section 2.29 discloses intra prediction mode with a minimum SATD selected as a TIMD mode and used for intra prediction of a current CU.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Deng in view of Choi to add the teachings of Zhang in order to devise a method for performing combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) with intra mode determination based on a calculated sum of absolute transformed differences of a target block associated with intra prediction modes.
Regarding claim 9, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 2, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 2 for corresponding motivation statement.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Choi in view of Chiang et al. (US 20200322623 A1) (hereinafter Chiang).
Regarding claim 3, Deng in view of Choi discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Deng discloses:
determining an intra weight and an inter weight based on the first intra prediction mode; and [See Deng, Fig. 13 illustrates neighboring blocks used in combined inter and intra prediction (CIIP) weight derivation; See Deng, ¶ 0055 discloses intra prediction unit 206 may generate prediction data for the current video block; See Deng, ¶ 0070 discloses intra prediction unit 303 may use intra prediction modes to form a prediction block.]
Deng in view of Choi does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein obtaining the final predictor of the target block by weighted averaging the intra predictor of the target block and an inter predictor of the target block further comprises:
determining an intra weight and an inter weight based on the first intra prediction mode; and
obtaining the final predictor of the target block by weighted averaging the intra predictor of the target block and the inter predictor of the target block with the intra weight and the inter weight, respectively.
However, Chiang discloses:
wherein obtaining the final predictor of the target block by weighted averaging the intra predictor of the target block and an inter predictor of the target block further comprises:
obtaining the final predictor of the target block by weighted averaging the intra predictor of the target block and the inter predictor of the target block with the intra weight and the inter weight, respectively. [See Chiang, ¶ 0111 discloses weighted averaging of inter and intra prediction signals is performed to obtain the CIIP prediction; See Chiang, ¶ 0112-0115 discloses the weights used for combining intra prediction and inter prediction can be selected from any subset of the weighting pool according to a set of weight-combination settings.]
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention disclosed by Deng in view of Choi to add the teachings of Chiang in order to achieve substantially higher coding performance in techniques for obtaining a target block predictor by weighted averaging of intra and inter predictors.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 3 for corresponding motivation statement.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 3, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 3 for corresponding motivation statement.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11-13, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Choi in view of Chiang in view of Zhang et al. (US 20180376149 A1) (hereinafter Zhang 2).
Regarding claim 4, Deng in view of Choi in view of Chiang discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Deng in view of Choi in view of Chiang does not appear to explicitly disclose:
wherein obtaining the final predictor of the target block by weighted averaging the intra predictor of the target block and the inter predictor of the target block further comprises:
obtaining a first predictor by multiplying the intra predictor with the intra weight;
obtaining a second predictor by multiplying the inter predictor with the inter weight;
obtaining a third predictor by adding the first predictor and the second predictor; and
obtaining the final predictor by adding an offset and right-shifting a number of bits.
However, Zhang 2 discloses:
wherein obtaining the final predictor of the target block by weighted averaging the intra predictor of the target block and the inter predictor of the target block further comprises:
obtaining a first predictor by multiplying the intra predictor with the intra weight; [See Zhang 2, ¶ 0144-0148, 0170, 0186, discloses generating an inter-intra prediction block based on a weighted combination of an inter predictor and an intra predictor. Particularly, a video coder (e.g., one or both of video encoder 200 and video decoder 300) may determine an intra-prediction mode for block of a picture, and determine a first weight and a second weight based on the determined intra-prediction mode. The video coder may generate a first prediction block for the block according to the intra-prediction mode, and generate a second prediction block for the block according to an inter-prediction mode.]
obtaining a second predictor by multiplying the inter predictor with the inter weight; [See Zhang 2, ¶ 0144-0148, 0170, 0186, discloses generating an inter-intra prediction block based on a weighted combination of an inter predictor and an intra predictor. Particularly, a video coder (e.g., one or both of video encoder 200 and video decoder 300) may determine an intra-prediction mode for block of a picture, and determine a first weight and a second weight based on the determined intra-prediction mode. The video coder may generate a first prediction block for the block according to the intra-prediction mode, and generate a second prediction block for the block according to an inter-prediction mode.]
obtaining a third predictor by adding the first predictor and the second predictor; and [See Zhang 2, ¶ 0149 discloses the video coder may add the first weighted prediction block and the second weighted prediction block to generate the final prediction block.]
obtaining the final predictor by adding an offset and right-shifting a number of bits. [See Zhang 2, ¶ 0074, 0098 discloses performing a bitwise right-shift of the value to be quantized as well as a horizontal/vertical offset value.]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with weighted averaging techniques and would have understood, as evidenced by Zhang 2, that in order to improve encoding efficiency by implementing a weighted averaging of inter and intra predictors, multiplying said weights of each of an inter and intra predictor would have been beneficial. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to include such multiplicative weightings as taught by Zhang 2 in the combined teachings of Deng in view of Choi and Chiang in order to obtain this advantage. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Deng in view of Choi in view of Chiang discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Zhang 2 discloses:
wherein determining the intra weight and the inter weight based on the first intra prediction mode further comprises:
in response to the first intra prediction mode being a non-angular mode, the intra weight and the inter weight are determined by a plurality of adjacent blocks of the target block. [See Zhang 2, ¶ 0069, 0092, 0151-0155, 0218 discloses determining an intra-prediction mode classification from a plurality of ranges, the plurality of ranges based on angles associated with prediction directions of each mode. Particularly, for a DC mode, intra-prediction unit 226 may calculate an average of the neighboring samples to the current block and generate the prediction block to include this resulting average for each sample of the prediction block.
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Deng in view of Choi in view of Chiang discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Zhang 2 discloses:
wherein determining the intra weight and the inter weight based on the first intra prediction mode further comprises:
in response to the first intra prediction mode being an angular mode, intra weights for different positions of the target block have different values. [See Zhang 2, ¶ 0069, 0092, 0151-0155, 0218 discloses determining an intra-prediction mode classification from a plurality of ranges, the plurality of ranges based on angles associated with prediction directions of each mode.]
The reasons to combine the cited prior art are applicable to those presented for previously rejected claim 4.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 4 for corresponding motivation statement.
Regarding claim 12, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 5 for corresponding motivation statement.
Regarding claim 13, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 6 for corresponding motivation statement.
Regarding claim 17, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 4, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 4 for corresponding motivation statement.
Regarding claim 18, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 5 for corresponding motivation statement.
Regarding claim 19, this claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Please see examiner’s earlier rejection of claim 6 for corresponding motivation statement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14, and 20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK E DEMOSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-8799. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-4 EST.
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 Atala can be reached at 5712727384. 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.
/PATRICK E DEMOSKY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
