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 on 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Generally, Applicant appears to argue that the Specification contains subject matter that is patent eligible and distinct from the cited art. However, the claims recite little that can put them into a patentable context.
Examiner notes that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claims. 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). The claims must recite limitations that Applicant believes to provide patent eligibility and novelty, these limitations may not be presumed into the claim. For example, the present claims do not require encoding images into a bitstream or decoding a bitstream into images. See reasons for rejection below.
Regarding Section 101, Applicant argues: “Step 2A, Prong 1 - Judicial Exception. The Office Action characterizes the claims as directed to abstract ideas involving collecting, analyzing, and outputting information. Applicant respectfully submits that this characterization reads the claims at an impermissibly high level of abstraction. The claims are not directed to the abstract concept of processing data in general; they are directed to a specific and concrete method of intra prediction in image coding,”
Examiner notes that the claims recite generation of information described as modes, lines, and blocks, which are abstract concepts. While the claimed information is intended to be used in image coding, the claims themselves are not limited to performing this application.
Applicant argues: “Step 2A, Prong 2 - Integration into a Practical Application. Even if the claims recite a judicial exception, the additional elements integrate that exception into a practical application. The claimed method provides a concrete improvement in the technical field of image coding. As set forth in the specification, the present disclosure is directed to …”
Examiner notes that Applicant fails to identify a “concrete” improvement in the claims and cite evidence that the claim limitations represent a concrete improvement in the art. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Further, an improvement in the technical field is not necessarily a practical application. Finally, limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims are short and vague and rely on the Specification to give them a practical meaning. Applicant should clarify the performed application (i.e. encoding images) and the modified subject matter (i.e. image pixels) in the claims.
Applicant argues: “The Office Action states that the additional elements - such as "An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus" - merely link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims do more than recite a generic application. The specific steps of obtaining a plurality of intra prediction modes and a plurality of reference sample lines,”
Examiner notes that the claims do not require a practical application at all; there are steps of generating blocks and lines not limited to particular blocks and lines and not limited to a particular application.
Applicant argues: “Step 2B - Significantly More. The Office Action concludes that the claims do not recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. Applicant respectfully disagrees. The specific fusion mechanism - generating independent prediction blocks from respective combinations of intra prediction modes and reference sample lines, and combining them by weighted sum – was not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art at the time of the effective filing date.”
Examiner notes that Applicant simply concludes that the claims recite significantly more and that they are not well-understood without citing supporting evidence. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). prediction blocks, intra prediction modes and weighted sums are well understood concepts in the context of image encoding based on standards such as MPEG, JPEG, and VVC. See reasons for rejection below.
Regarding Section 102, Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that Jun does not anticipate claim 1, and accordingly does not anticipate any of claims 2-4, 12, and 14 which depend from or incorporate the limitations of claim 1. … As described in the specification (see examples described in Equations 3 and 4, and FIGS. 11, 23, and 24), the claimed features …”
Examiner notes that limitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If Applicant believes that particular portions in the Specification are the ones that provide patentable subject matter, then these limitations should be explicitly claimed.
Applicant argues: “The Office Action cites Jun, Paragraphs 220 and 345, as disclosing "obtaining a plurality of intra prediction modes." Applicant respectfully submits that neither paragraph discloses this limitation. Paragraph 220 of Jun states that "the intra prediction mode of the first sub-block may refer to an initial mode" and describes a method for deriving an initial mode for a sub-block when the intra prediction modes of sub-blocks are derived as the mean of neighboring block modes. This paragraph is directed to deriving a single initial mode for a sub-block within a sub-block-based intra prediction scheme. It does not disclose obtaining a plurality of intra prediction modes for the purpose of generating respective prediction blocks for fusion.”
Examiner disagrees: As cited, Jun describes: “intra prediction modes of blocks to the left of and above the sub-block,” Jun, Paragraphs 220, 345. This is a plurality of intra prediction modes consistent with the present Specification and dependent claims 4-5.
Applicant argues: “While this paragraph mentions two prediction modes, it discloses constructing a single prediction block as a weighted sum of two predicted values. It does not disclose obtaining a plurality of intra prediction modes to generate a plurality of independent prediction blocks that are subsequently fused.”
Examiner notes that the claim is not directed to fusion or independent prediction blocks or limit the block contents, shape, and so on. Prior art teaches embodiments consistent with the Specification and dependent claims 4-5: “A plurality of reconstructed sample lines may be, for example, one or more left and/or top reconstructed sample lines neighboring to a current block. … for a current coding block, using one or more [plurality of] reconstructed sample lines neighboring to the current block, the reference sample may be constructed by assigning different weights.” Thus, each prediction of the block is based on a reference line from a plurality of reference lines. See Jun, Paragraphs 226, 228.
Applicant argues: “The Office Action cites Jun, Paragraphs 226, 228, and 272-273, for the limitation of generating a plurality of prediction blocks based on the plurality of intra prediction modes and the plurality of reference sample lines. Applicant respectfully submits that these paragraphs do not disclose this limitation. Paragraph 228 of Jun describes constructing a reference sample from a plurality of reconstructed sample lines using a weighted sum. Specifically, Paragraph 228 states: "when a reference sample is constructed for a current coding block, using one or more reconstructed sample lines neighboring to the current block, the reference sample may be constructed by assigning different weights according to distances from the current block and the directionality of the intra prediction mode of the current block."”
Examiner notes that Prior art teaches embodiments consistent with the Specification and dependent claims 4-5: “A plurality of reconstructed sample lines may be, for example, one or more left and/or top reconstructed sample lines neighboring to a current block. … for a current coding block, using one or more [plurality of] reconstructed sample lines neighboring to the current block, the reference sample may be constructed by assigning different weights.” Thus, each prediction of the block is based on a reference line from a plurality of reference lines. See Jun, Paragraphs 226, 228.
Applicant argues: “Equation 4 of Jun, cited in Paragraph 228, shows a filtering operation (e.g., ref[x,-1] = (rec[x, -2] + 3 ·rec[x,-1] + 2) >> 2) that combines multiple reconstructed sample lines into a single reference sample. In other words, Jun's Paragraph 228 describes using multiple reconstructed sample lines to construct a single reference sample, from which a single prediction block is then generated. This is fundamentally different from the claimed invention, which generates a separate, independent prediction block for each combination of an intra prediction mode and a reference sample line, and then fuses those independent prediction blocks by weighted sum.”
Examiner notes that Claim 1 is not limited to independent prediction blocks or how they are constructed. According to the Specification Paragraphs 254-255, 85, and dependent Claim 10 as well as the prior art, the plurality of prediction blocks can comprise a sample. Prediction blocks can also be subblocks as noted in Specification, Paragraph 85 and Jun, Paragraphs 272-273.
Applicant argues: “Paragraph 398 of Jun states "when the slice type is a T (Tri-predictive)-slice, a prediction block may be generated by using at least three motion vectors, and may be used as the final prediction block of the encoding/decoding target block by calculating a weighted sum of at least three prediction blocks." This paragraph is explicitly directed to inter prediction using motion vectors. It is entirely unrelated to intra prediction.”
Examiner notes that this reference is relevant to the prediction blocks and supports the main reason for rejection.
Applicant argues: “Moreover, the claimed invention provides a concrete and non-obvious technical benefit. As described in the specification (see Advantageous Effects section), the present disclosure provides an image encoding/decoding method and apparatus with improved encoding/decoding efficiency and specifically enables fusion of a plurality of prediction blocks generated using MRL-based intra prediction’”
As a threshold matter, the present claims are not limited to performing MRL-based intra prediction, thus this is not a benefit provided by the claims.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected as being directed toward patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, under the “Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” issued on January 7, 2019 (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4, 50).
The claims are directed to statutory categories of methods, articles of manufacture (under Step 1).
Upon analysis of the present claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (under Step 2A, prong one), the claims appear to recite a judicial exception, an abstract idea directed to logical concepts, mathematical relationships, following rules or instructions, mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and allusions to empirical determinations without limitation to particular empirical equations or algorithms) of “obtaining a plurality of intra prediction modes and a plurality of reference sample lines of a current block; … generating a plurality of prediction blocks of the current block based on the plurality of intra prediction modes and the plurality of reference sample lines; and … generating a final prediction block of the current block based on a weighted sum of the plurality of prediction blocks.” See Claim 1. The method describes broad relationships between an unspecified number of pieces of data and lacks limitations to a particular practical application.
The claims include several categories of this abstract idea: information (a plurality of intra prediction modes and a plurality of reference sample lines of a current block … a plurality of prediction blocks … a final prediction block), collecting information (obtaining, generating); outputting information (generating), and/or analyzing information at a high degree of algorithmic generality (based on a ·weighted sum). These categories have been identified as abstract ideas by the Federal Circuit as summarized in Electric Power Group, LLC v. ALSTOM SA, 830 F. 3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016):
Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12, 127 S.Ct. 1746, 167 L.Ed.2d 737 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'l Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. 1354*1354 v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed.Appx. 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90, 98 S.Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 451 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67, 93 S.Ct. 253, 34 L.Ed.2d 273 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Upon consideration of the record (under Step 2A, prong two), Examiner did not find that the additional elements of the present claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that judicial exception “in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” The additional elements, when considered individually or in a claim as a whole, “ An image decoding method pe1fonned by an image decoding apparatus comprising … An image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus comprising … A computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream. generated by the image encoding method … A method of transmitting a bitstream generated by an image encoding method …”, do not seem to reflect a substantive improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field under the standards of the present judicial guidance; (the claims describe logical relationships between elements of data that may used in a variety of different applications but not limited to a particular practical application); do not seem use a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (a general purpose computer or storage medium is not a particular machine integral to the claim); do not seem to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (a logical or a mathematical transformation of data is not a physical article or a state).
This is further evidenced in that the additional elements, merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (transmit or store the data); do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. linked broadly to encoding or decoding an image without performing of encoding or decoding of an image).
Substantially similar subject matter has been found ineligible in In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969) (An abstract idea rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, for claiming a process of analyzing data by selecting the data to be analyzed and by subjecting the data to a mathematical manipulation); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, (Fed Cir. May 17, 2016) (Method for recording, transmitting, organizing, and administering digital images is ineligible); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F. 3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Encoding and decoding of an image is an abstract concept long utilized to transmit information, and addition of a mathematical equation that simply changes the data into other forms of data cannot render it patent eligible).
Finally, the claimed elements, when considered individually and in combination (under step 2B), do not seem to provide an Inventive Concept that is “significantly more” than the ineligible subject matter. The claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception, at a high level of generality, that is the claims simply recite the same data operation as broadly applicable in a variety of different environments such as encoding, decoding, transmitting, and storing methodology. The claimed abstract idea is generally applicable, and thus it is not limited to a specific practical application.
The claims should be amended to include meaningful limitations within the technical field.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
While Applicant is allowed to be his own lexicographer in describing claim structures, Examiner must reject the claim based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed elements and not based on the presence of Applicant’s exact phrasing. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 904.01(a).
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I).
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.
(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.
Claims 1-4, 12,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by US 20190166375 to Jun (“Jun”).
Regarding Claim 1: “An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of intra prediction modes and (“For example, if the intra prediction mode of each sub-block is derived as the mean of the [plurality of] intra prediction modes of blocks to the left of and above the sub-block,” Jun, Paragraphs 220, 345.)
a plurality of reference sample lines of a current block; (“for a current coding block, using one or more reconstructed sample lines neighboring to the current block” Jun, Paragraph 228.)
generating a plurality of prediction blocks of the current block based on the plurality of intra prediction modes and the plurality of reference sample lines; and (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, “the plurality of prediction blocks includes a first prediction block generated based on a first reference sample line and a second prediction block generated based on a second reference sample line.” See the original Claims 7 and 8 and Specification, Paragraph 18. Prior art teaches this: “A plurality of reconstructed sample lines may be, for example, one or more left and/or top reconstructed sample lines neighboring to a current block. … for a current coding block, using one or more [plurality of] reconstructed sample lines neighboring to the current block, the reference sample may be constructed by assigning different weights.” Thus, each prediction of the block is based on a reference line from a plurality of reference lines. See Jun, Paragraphs 226, 228. Also note another embodiment “As illustrated in FIG. 13, an 8x8 current block may be divided into two 8x4 prediction blocks. In intra prediction of each prediction block, intra prediction may be performed for a second prediction block, using the same reference samples” Jun, Paragraphs 272-273.)
generating a final prediction block of the current block based on a weighted sum of the plurality of prediction blocks.” (“for a current coding block, using one or more reconstructed sample lines neighboring to the current block, the reference sample may be constructed by assigning different weights … The weighted sum may be calculated based on information about the current block … and/or information about a neighbor block,” where each prediction block corresponds to a reconstructed sample line as noted above. See, Jun, Paragraph 228. Note another embodiment of “calculating a weighted sum of at least three prediction blocks.” Jun, Paragraph 398.)
Regarding Claim 2: “The image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the second prediction mode is derived to be one of a predetermined mode or a most probable mode (MPM) candidate mode, based on information indicating a second intra prediction mode of the plurality of intra prediction modes being not obtained from. a bitstream.” (“For example, an Nth (e.g., first [or second]) mode listed in an MPM list may be derived as the initial mode. … using the intra prediction mode of the current block and a value predicted using a predetermined mode included in an MPM list.” Jun, Paragraphs 221, 345.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The image decoding method of claim 1, wherein based on an intra prediction mode of the current block and an intra prediction mode of a neighboring block, a second reference sample line among the plurality of reference sample lines is determined based on a size of the neighboring block.” (“using one or more reconstructed sample lines neighboring to the current block, … The weighted sum may be calculated based on information about the current block (the intra prediction mode, size, shape, and/or division information of the current block) and/or information about a neighbor block (the intra prediction mode, size, shape, and/or division information of the neighbor block).” Jun, Paragraph 228 and Fig. 8. Also note that since a second reference sample line is a line of the neighboring block, its contents and dimensions are inherently determined based on the size of the neighboring block.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The image decoding method of claim 1, wherein
based on there being two or more neighboring blocks having the same intra prediction mode as an intra prediction mode of the current block, (“when the current prediction block and the neighboring prediction block have the same intra-prediction mode … the intra prediction mode of the current block may be derived, using an intra prediction mode of a neighbor block” Jun, Paragraphs 161, 164.)
a second reference sample line among the plurality of reference sample lines is determined based on widths and heights of the neighboring blocks.” (Note that since a second reference sample line is a line of one of the neighboring blocks, its contents and dimensions are inherently determined based on the size (width and height) of the neighboring block. See Jun, Fig. 8. This remains true when the intra prediction modes of the blocks are the same and when they are not.)
Claim 12, “An image encoding method performed by an image encoding apparatus, the image encoding method comprising: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, because it performs the steps of Claim 1 and because prior art teaches these features as part of “method and apparatus for encoding and decoding an image” See Jun, Paragraph 5.)
Claim 14, “A method of transmitting a bitstream” is rejected for reasons stated for Claims 1 and 12 and because prior art teaches:
“generating the bitstream … transmitting the bitstream.” (Jun teaches: “Image data may be effectively compressed by using such image compression technology, and may be transmitted or stored. … bitstream generated by an image encoding method/apparatus of the present invention.” See Jun, Paragraphs 3 and 6. This is because bitstream is a product of the image encoding method and, “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113(I). Cumulatively, this claim is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1 in view of Jun, Paragraphs 3 and 6.)
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.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190166375 to Jun (“Jun”) in view of US 20210281830 to Lee (“Lee 2”).
Regarding Claim 5: “The image decoding method of claim 4,
wherein the neighboring blocks include a left neighboring block and an above neighboring block, (“A plurality of reconstructed sample lines may be, for example, one or more left and/or top reconstructed sample lines neighboring to a current block.” Jun, Paragraph 226, and Figs. 8-9.)
wherein based on a width of the left neighboring block being less than or equal to a height of the above neighboring block, the second reference sample line is determined to be a reference sample line separated from the current block by a width of the left neighboring block, (“A plurality of reconstructed sample lines may be, for example, one or more left and/or top reconstructed sample lines neighboring to a current block.” Jun, Paragraph 226. The plurality includes the sample lines corresponding to a distance equal to a width or a height of a block. See Jun Paragraph 231 and Figs 9 and 17.
Although Jun does not necessarily name or number such a line as a “second reference sample line” the naming or numbering of this line does not appear to materially alter the performance of the claimed method steps.
Cumulatively Lee 2 teaches selecting a coding value based on a comparison of widths and heights of a block in the context of encoding and decoding video under the standards and using the MPM mode: “an MPM candidate index may be determined according to a size/type of the current block. For example, when the current block has a non-square shape having a height greater than a width, the intra prediction mode of the top neighboring block may have an index value smaller than that of the left neighboring block. When the current block has a non-square shape having a width greater than a height, the intra prediction mode of the left neighboring block may have an index value smaller than that of the top neighboring block.” Lee, Paragraph 209.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Jun to assign a reference sample line to be a second reference line based on comparison of block widths and heights, in order to assign values without coding them in the bitstream. Lee, Paragraph 209.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.)
and wherein based on the width of the left neighboring block being greater than the height of the above neighboring block, the second reference sample line is determined to be a reference sample line separated from the current block by the height of the above neighboring block.” (“A plurality of reconstructed sample lines may be, for example, one or more left and/or top reconstructed sample lines neighboring to a current block.” Jun, Paragraph 226. The plurality includes the sample lines corresponding to a distance equal to a width or a height of a block. See Jun Paragraph 231 and Figs 9 and 17. Although Jun does not necessarily name or number such a line as a “second reference sample line” the naming or numbering of this line does not appear to materially alter the performance of the claimed method steps.)
Regarding Claim 6: “The image decoding method of claim. 1, wherein the weight is determined based on at least one of a size of the current block, a shape of the current block, an intra prediction mode of the current block, a distance between the current block and a reference sample line or a template matching-based cost.” (“for a current coding block, using one or more reconstructed sample lines neighboring to the current block, the reference sample may be constructed by assigning different weights … The weighted sum may be calculated based on information about the current block (the intra prediction mode, size, shape, and/or division information of the current block) and/or information about a neighbor block (the intra prediction mode, size, shape, and/or division information of the neighbor block).” where each prediction block corresponds to a reconstructed sample line as noted above. See, Jun, Paragraph 228. See similarly in Lee 2, Paragraph 308 and statement of motivation in Claim 5.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The image decoding method of claim 6, wherein
the plurality of prediction blocks includes a first prediction block generated based on a first reference sample line and a second prediction block generated based on a second reference sample line, (“A plurality of reconstructed sample lines may be, for example, one or more left and/or top reconstructed sample lines neighboring to a current block.” Jun, Paragraph 228. As noted in Claim 1, reference blocks correspond to reference sample lines.)
wherein the first reference sample line is located closer to the current block than the second reference sample line, and (“using one or more reconstructed sample lines neighboring to the current block, the reference sample may be constructed by assigning different weights according to distances from the current block and the directionality of the intra prediction mode of the current block.” Jun, Paragraph 228.)
wherein a first weight applied to the first prediction block is less than a second weight applied to the second prediction block based on a size of the current block being greater than or equal to a threshold value and … is greater than the second weight based on the size of the current block being less than the threshold value.” (“The weighted sum may be calculated based on information about the current block (the intra prediction mode, size, shape, and/or division information of the current block) and/or information about a neighbor block (the intra prediction mode, size, shape, and/or division information of the neighbor block). For example, a filter applied to the weighted sum ( e.g., a 3-tap filter, a 5-tap filter, a 7-tap filter, and/or an N-tap filter) may be selected, taking into account at least one of the above pieces of information. … the precision of a filter may be selected adaptively according to at least one of information …” Jun, Paragraphs 228, 231.
Although Jun does not provide an explicit example of the weight to size relationship in the claim, it does teach that the weight can be adaptively selected based on the current block size, and thus it is capable and likely to produce the claimed relationship for at least two out of a plurality of reference lines and corresponding weight coefficients. Cumulatively, Lee 2 teaches an example where one weight is assigned if a width (size) is larger than a threshold and another weight if a width (size) is smaller than a threshold. Lee 2, Paragraph 308. See statement of motivation in Claim 5.)
Regarding Claim 8: “The image decoding method of claim 6, wherein
the plurality of prediction blocks includes a first prediction block generated based on a first reference sample line and a second prediction block generated based on a second reference sample line, (“A plurality of reconstructed sample lines may be, for example, one or more left and/or top reconstructed sample lines neighboring to a current block.” Jun, Paragraph 228. As noted in Claim 1, reference blocks correspond to reference sample lines.)
wherein the first reference sample line is located closer to the current block than the second reference sample line, and (“using one or more reconstructed sample lines neighboring to the current block, the reference sample may be constructed by assigning different weights according to distances from the current block and the directionality of the intra prediction mode of the current block.” Jun, Paragraph 228.)
wherein a first weight applied to the first prediction block is greater than a second weight applied to the second prediction block, based on an intra prediction mode of the current block being a DC mode or a planar mode.” (“The weighted sum may be calculated based on information about the current block (the intra prediction mode, size, shape, and/or division information of the current block) and/or information about a neighbor block (the intra prediction mode, size, shape, and/or division information of the neighbor block). For example, a filter applied to the weighted sum ( e.g., a 3-tap filter, a 5-tap filter, a 7-tap filter, and/or an N-tap filter) may be selected, taking into account at least one of the above pieces of information. … the precision of a filter may be selected adaptively according to at least one of information …” Jun, Paragraphs 228, 231. Further, “The non-directional mode may be at least one of, for example, the DC mode and the Planar mode. If the non-directional mode is the DC mode, intra prediction may be performed, using the mean value of one or more of the constructed reference samples. Herein, filtering may be applied to one or more prediction samples located at the boundary of the current block. The number of mean values may be 1 or larger, and prediction may be performed, using different mean values according to the positions of target samples for prediction.” Jun, Paragraphs 336, 338. Although Jun does not provide an explicit example of the weight to prediction mode relationship in the claim, it does teach that the weight can be adaptively selected based on the prediction mode being a DC or a planar mode, and thus it is capable and likely to produce the claimed relationship for at least two out of a plurality of reference lines and corresponding weight coefficients.)
Regarding Claim 9: “The image decoding i:nethod of claim. 6, wherein
the plurality of prediction blocks includes a first prediction block generated using a directional prediction mode in a vertical direction and a second prediction block generated using a directional prediction mode in a horizontal direction, and (“The directional mode may be at least one of, for example, a horizontal mode, a vertical mode, and a mode having a predetermined angle.” See Jun, Paragraph 339 and Fig. 9.)
wherein a first weight applied to the first prediction block is greater than a second weight applied to the second prediction block based on a width of the current block being greater than or equal to a height of the current block and is less than the second weight based on the ·width of the current block being less than the height of the current block.” (“The weighted sum may be calculated based on information about the current block (the intra prediction mode, size, shape [indicative of whether the width is greater than the height], … the precision [weights] of a filter may be selected adaptively according to at least one of information …” thus the weights are adaptively selected based on the shape of the block. Jun, Paragraphs 228, 231, Figs. 8-9. Cumulatively, Lee 2 teaches “When the current block is a non-square block whose a width is greater than a height, w may be set that a higher weight is applied to the first prediction image. On the other hand, when the current block is a non-square block whose a height is greater than a width, w may be set that a higher weight is applied to the second prediction image.” Lee 2, Paragraph 308. See statement of motivation in Claim 5.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The image decoding method of claim 6, wherein the weight is determined based on a distance between a position of a sample included in the current block and the reference sample line.” (“assigning different weights according to distances from the current block and the directionality of the intra prediction mode of the current block.” Jun, Paragraph 228.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The image decoding method of claim 6, wherein the template matching-based cost includes a first template cost calculated based on the first sample line and a second template cost calculated based on the second reference sample line, and wherein the weight is determined based on comparison of the first template cost and the second template cost.” (Note that Claims 6 and 11 do not require using template matching cost. Cumulatively, prior art teaches: “a coding mode having a minimum cost function value according to rate-distortion optimization may be determined to be an intra prediction mode for the current block” Jun, Paragraph 280. “For example, a reference sample for the current coding block may be constructed using a weighted sum of one reference sample line determined to be best among one or more reference sample lines available for the current block” and thus having the lowest distortion cost when compared to other (second) weighted sums. See Jun, Paragraph 238.)
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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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 (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights