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
Applicants’ arguments filed on June 3, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to teach, disclose or suggest all limitations of claims 1 and 14. In particular, Applicant asserts that the cited references fail to disclose “wherein applying a template-based tool using the obtained information comprises skipping a computation in a case where the computation involves a pixel identified as unavailable by the obtained information.”
More particularly, Applicant contends that Naser merely modifies the input to the template matching computation by using a partial template when a portion of the full template is unavailable. According to Applicant, the template matching computation itself is still performed using the smaller template, and therefore Naser does not disclose “skipping a computation.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited “a computation” is not limited to the entire template matching operation. The limitation encompasses omitting a computation that would otherwise involve a pixel identified as unavailable while continuing the template-based processing using pixels that remain available.
As explained in the previous Office action, Naser discloses that only available reference samples are used for template matching, that a partial template is considered when the full template exceeds the frame boundary, and that the unavailable portions represented by the dashed portions of the template are ignored. Accordingly, when an unavailable portion of the template is excluded from the template matching. The computation involving the unavailable pixel is not performed, while the remaining template-matching processing may continue using the available portion of the template.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not require skipping the entire template matching operation whenever an unavailable pixel is present. Rather, the claims recite “skipping a computation in a case where the computation involves a pixel identified as unavailable by the obtained information.”
Applicant's interpretation would require that the entire template matching computation be skipped whenever an unavailable pixel exists. Such a requirement is not recited in claims 1 or 14.
Additionally, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the assertion that the cited references fail to disclose.
Applicant further characterizes the claimed subject matter as requiring an algorithmic modification in which the process is aware of a full-size conceptual template and actively skips computational steps corresponding to unavailable pixels, while alleging that Naser merely changes the data input to the algorithm.
This argument is also not persuasive because it requires requirements that are not recited in the claims. Claims 1 and 14 do not require maintaining a full-size conceptual template during execution, do not require a particular internal representation of that template, and do not require that the overall template matching algorithm cease execution. The claims require obtaining information identifying unavailable pixels and skipping a computation where that computation involves a pixel identified as unavailable. The rejection applies the claim language as written and does not require the additional limitations urged by Applicant.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Applicant relies on the same argument presented with respect to claims 1 and 14 concerning the ‘skipping a computation’ limitation. For the reasons discussed above, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant correctly notes that the previous Office action unintentionally identified claims 27 and 28 as claims 28 and 29. The claim numbering is corrected herein
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments do not overcome the rejection of claims 1 and 14.
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)(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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naser et al. (“[AHG12] On Intra TMP Boundary Condition” Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 23rd Meeting, by teleconference, Document: JVET-W0069 7–16 July 2021), hereinafter referred to as Naser.
Regarding claim 1, Naser discloses decoding method comprising: obtaining information identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block of a picture (Abstract, “when the template of the current block is not available, e.g. when it exceeds the frame boundary”);
applying a template-based tool using the information identifying unavailable pixels to determine information to be used for decoding the current block, (Abstract, prediction block is generating by matching the L-shaped template of the current block with the prediction block’s template (TPM tool))
wherein applying a template-based tool using the obtained information comprises skipping a computation in a case where the computation involves a pixel identified as unavailable by the obtained information (Abstract, only available reference samples are used for template matching; and section 2, consider partial template when the full template exceeds the frame boundary; and fig. 2 Partial templates used for intra TMP where dashed templates are ignored); and decoding the current block using the determined information (Abstract, The prediction block is generating…).
Regarding claim 14, this claim is rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the decoding method of claim 1, since it claims analogous subject matter in the form of an encoding method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
The Examiner notes that it is well-known in the art that video compression involves a complementary pair of systems: an encoder and a decoder. The encoder converts the source data into a compressed form, occupying a reduced number of bits prior to transmission or storage, while the decoder converts the compressed form back into a representation of the original video data by performing a reciprocal process to that of the encoder, decoding the encoded video data from the bitstream.
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.
Claims 3, 9, 16 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naser, in view of Deng et al. (US20210329248A1), hereinafter referred to as Deng
Regarding claim 3, Naser discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Naser does not explicitly disclose method according to claim 1, further comprises flattening the template prior to applying the template-based tool.
However, Deng from the same or similar endeavor of video coding techniques discloses method according to claim 1, further comprises flattening the template prior to applying the template-based tool (¶ [0244] discloses assigning the reduced top and left boundary samples redT and redL are assigned to the boundary sample array into a single 1-D boundary array p[x]).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Naser to add the teachings of Deng as above, in order to improve runtime performance (Deng, [0055]).
Regarding claim 9, Naser discloses a decoding method comprising:
obtaining information identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block of a picture (Abstract, “when the template of the current block is not available, e.g. when it exceeds the frame boundary”);
applying a template-based tool using the information identifying unavailable pixels to determine information to be used for decoding the current block, (Abstract, prediction block is generating by matching the L-shaped template of the current block with the prediction block’s template (TPM tool))
wherein applying a template-based tool using the obtained information comprises skipping a computation in a case where the computation involves a pixel identified as unavailable by the obtained information (Abstract, only available reference samples are used for template matching; and section 2, consider partial template when the full template exceeds the frame boundary; and fig. 2 Partial templates used for intra TMP where dashed templates are ignored); and decoding the current block using the determined information (Abstract, The prediction block is generating…).
Naser does not explicitly disclose spatially reorganizing pixels inside the template in order to increase a number of memory-contiguous available pixels.
However, Deng from the same or similar endeavor of video coding techniques discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising spatially reorganizing pixels inside the template in order to increase a number of memory-contiguous available pixels (¶[0244] discloses assigning the reduced top and left boundary samples redT and redL are assigned to the boundary sample array into a single 1-D boundary array p[x]); and ).
The motivation for combining Naser and Deng has been discussed in connection with claim 3, above.
Regarding claims 16 and 22, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the decoding method of claims 3 and 9, since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of an encoding method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Claims 4-8, 10, 17-21, 23, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naser, in view of Bross et al. (US20230188715A1), hereinafter referred to as Bross.
Regarding claim 4, Naser discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Naser does not explicitly disclose method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining information for identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block comprises obtaining indices of all pixels which are unavailable.
However, Bross from the same or similar endeavor of video coding techniques discloses method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining information for identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block comprises obtaining indices of all pixels which are unavailable (¶[0062] discloses sequentially determine an availability or unavailability of each of the plurality of extended reference samples; and ¶[0063] discloses determine the availability or unavailability sequentially according to a sequence).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Naser to add the teachings of Deng as above, by determine availability per frame reference, the codec can identify unavailable samples and replace or skip them. This ensures the prediction tool operates correctly even when some templates are unavailable. Such as at picture or tile boundaries.
Regarding claim 5, Naser and Bross disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Naser does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining information for identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block comprises obtaining indices of all pixels which are available.
However, Bross from the same or similar endeavor of video coding techniques discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining information for identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block comprises obtaining indices of all pixels which are available (¶[0065] portion of available extended reference samples of the plurality of extended reference samples is larger than or equal a predetermined threshold; and ¶[0059] determining the availability or unavailability, the video encoder may check the samples sequentially according to a sequence, determine the substitution sample as a copy a last extended reference sample being determined as available in the sequence).
The motivation for combining Naser and Bross has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 6, Naser and Bross disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Naser does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining information for identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block comprises obtaining flags, each flag indicating for a pixel in the template whether the pixel is available or not.
However, Bross from the same or similar endeavor of video coding techniques discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining information for identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block comprises obtaining flags, each flag indicating for a pixel in the template whether the pixel is available or not. (¶ [0062] sequentially determine an availability or unavailability of each of the plurality of extended reference samples).
The motivation for combining Naser and Bross has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 7, Naser and Bross disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Naser does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining information for identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block comprises for a group of neighboring unavailable pixels, obtaining an index of a first unavailable pixel and an index of a last unavailable pixel in the group.
However, Bross from the same or similar endeavor of video coding techniques discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining information for identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block comprises for a group of neighboring unavailable pixels, obtaining an index of a first unavailable pixel and an index of a last unavailable pixel in the group (¶[0063] determine the availability or unavailability sequentially according to a sequence; and ¶[0066] the unavailable samples can be replaced by the closest neighboring sample that is available).
The motivation for combining Naser and Bross has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 8, Naser and Bross disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Naser does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining information for identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block comprises for a group of neighboring available pixels, obtaining an index of a first available pixel and an index of a last available pixel in the group.
However, Bross from the same or similar endeavor of video coding techniques discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein obtaining information for identifying which pixels are unavailable inside a template of a current block comprises for a group of neighboring available pixels, obtaining an index of a first available pixel and an index of a last available pixel in the group. (¶ [0063] determine the substitution sample as a copy of a last extended reference sample being determined as available in the sequence; and ¶ [0067] substituted by the first available top reference sample).
The motivation for combining Naser and Bross has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claim 10, Naser and Bross disclose all the limitations of claim 1, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim.
Naser does not explicitly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein an unavailable pixel is one of a pixel not reconstructed yet, a pixel belonging to a tile different from a tile to which the current block belongs or a pixel outside of picture boundaries.
However, Bross from the same or similar endeavor of video coding techniques discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein an unavailable pixel is one of a pixel not reconstructed yet, a pixel belonging to a tile different from a tile to which the current block belongs or a pixel outside of picture boundaries. (¶ [0066] Reference samples are not available e.g. when they are located outside a picture, slice or tile boundary).
The motivation for combining Naser and Bross has been discussed in connection with claim 4, above.
Regarding claims 17-21 and 23, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the decoding method of claims 4-8 and 10 since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of an encoding/decoding method for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Regarding claims 27 and 28, these claims are rejected based on the same art and evidentiary limitations applied to the method of claim 1 since they claim analogous subject matter in the form of an encoding/decoding device for performing the same or equivalent functionality.
Naser does not explicitly disclose an apparatus comprising one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to said the one or more processors.
However, Bross from the same or similar endeavor of video coding techniques discloses an apparatus comprising one or more processors and at least one memory coupled to said the one or more processors (¶ [0645] and Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings disclosed by Naser to add the teachings of Deng as above, in order to implement a method in hardware or in software. The implementation can be performed using a digital storage medium, for example a floppy disk, a DVD, a CD, a ROM, a PROM, an EPROM, an EEPROM or a FLASH memory, having electronically readable control signals stored thereon, which cooperate (or are capable of cooperating) with a programmable computer system such that the respective method is performed (¶0545]).
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 extension fee 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 FABIO S LIMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0625. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 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, Jamie Atala can be reached on (571) 272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FABIO S LIMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights