DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 08/13/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Brandenburg fails to teach any of the recited techniques for generating the extended reference frame by filling areas outside of the reference frame {See Remarks, Pg. 8}. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Brandenburg discloses selecting an intra-prediction mode for padding an area of a reference portion of a reference picture which extends or lies beyond a border of the reference picture, wherein the referenced portion is reference by an inter prediction block (i.e. motion vector direction) (Claim 1). Also, see claim 9, border samples are used based on the reference portion projected along the direction. A template area (i.e. inside the reference frame) is used to determine an angular intra prediction mode (i.e. para. 0072) and/or claim 3, where boundary samples are used for selecting an intra-mode. Therefore, the reference portion is determined via a motion vector direction and boundary samples/template area inside the reference frame are used for determining angular intra-prediction. Also, see para. 0091, for different portions different available modes could be signaled so that the encoder and decoder would check with which portion of the reference picture's frame boundary the referenced area overlaps or which portion the referenced area crosses (i.e. by the motion vector direction), so as to decide as to which intra-prediction mode to use &/or a parameter specifying which exact angular intra-prediction modes are used for specific reference frame boundary regions. Therefore, the motion vector direction will determine which specific frame boundary regions are utilized and angular intra prediction is performed using boundary samples of the reference frame.
The claim limitation states “directional intra prediction using boundary samples of the reference frame according to a direction of the motion vector”. Therefore, this is being interpreted and rejected as “angular intra prediction using reference frame boundary samples, wherein the reference frame boundary samples are obtained via the motion vector direction”.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 14-17, 19-23, 25-29 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandenburg et al. (herein after will be referred to as Brandenburg) (US 20210029353).
Regarding claim 14, Brandenburg discloses
An apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to: [See Brandenburg [0125] Hardware apparatus for execution via a microprocessor. Also, see 0127 or 0129, memory for storing the instructions/program.]
determine a motion vector and a reference frame for a current block; [See Brandenburg [0009] Temporal inter prediction. Also, see 0060, motion vector points to portions in the plane of a reference picture.]
generate an extended reference frame by filling areas outside of the reference frame by one or more of the following: directional intra prediction using boundary samples of the reference frame according to a direction of the motion vector; intra prediction methods using decoded samples inside a current frame; or intra predicted samples of the current block; [See Brandenburg [0060] Padding a reference frame for portions beyond the border which no picture content is available. Also, see 0069, This is done via Multi-mode boundary padding (which uses angular intra prediction modes to extend the reference frame). Also, see 0071-0072, pixels outside the reference frame are predicted using adjacent border pixels of the reference frame. Since the motion vector defines the referenced pixel area for which the intra-prediction mode is selected, the intra prediction is considered to be used according to the motion vector direction.]
predict the current block by using motion compensation from the extended reference frame; and [See Brandenburg [Fig. 1] Prediction module (44).]
encode the current block into a bitstream. [See Brandenburg [Fig. 1] Encoder which generates an encoded bitstream.]
Regarding claim 15, Brandenburg discloses the apparatus of claim 14. Furthermore, Brandenburg discloses
wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to determine the intra prediction methods by using a texture analysis method. [See Brandenburg [0073] Texture analysis method.]
Regarding claim 16, Brandenburg discloses the apparatus of claim 15. Furthermore, Brandenburg discloses
wherein the texture analysis method is a decoder side intra mode derivation method. [See Brandenburg [0071] The intra-mode is derived in a video decoder.]
Regarding claim 17, Brandenburg discloses the apparatus of claim 14. Furthermore, Brandenburg discloses
wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to determine the intra prediction methods by using a template based intra mode derivation method. [See Brandenburg [0072 and Fig. 7] The intra mode used for padding is derived using a template area.]
Regarding claim 19, Brandenburg discloses the apparatus of claim 14. Furthermore, Brandenburg discloses
wherein the extended reference frame is generated by intra prediction from among the directional intra prediction, the intra prediction methods using decoded samples inside the current frame or the intra predicted samples of the current block, wherein the current block is predicted in accordance with a motion compensation predication, and wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to filter border samples between the intra prediction and a motion compensation prediction in a final prediction. [See Brandenburg [0004] Superposition of multiple prediction signals, wherein interpolation filters are used.]
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 14 which is applicable and analogous for the rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, see examiners rejection for claim 15 which is applicable and analogous for the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, see examiners rejection for claim 16 which is applicable and analogous for the rejection of claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, see examiners rejection for claim 17 which is applicable and analogous for the rejection of claim 23.
Regarding claim 25, see examiners rejection for claim 19 which is applicable and analogous for the rejection of claim 25.
Regarding claim 26, see examiners rejection for claim 14 which is applicable and analogous for the rejection of claim 26.
Regarding claim 27, see examiners rejection for claim 15 which is applicable and analogous for the rejection of claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, see examiners rejection for claim 16 which is applicable and analogous for the rejection of claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, see examiners rejection for claim 17 which is applicable and analogous for the rejection of claim 29.
Regarding claim 31, see examiners rejection for claim 19 which is applicable and analogous for the rejection of claim 31.
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 18, 24 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandenburg (US 20210029353) in view of Deng et al. (herein after will be referred to as Deng) (US 20220385926).
Regarding claim 18, Brandenburg discloses the apparatus of claim 14. Furthermore, Brandenburg does not explicitly disclose
wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to predict samples for areas outside of a picture by cross-component prediction, wherein samples in the areas outside of the picture in a reference channel are used for predicting samples for the areas outside of the picture in a current channel.
However, Deng does disclose
wherein the instructions, when executed with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to predict samples for areas outside of a picture by cross-component prediction, wherein samples in the areas outside of the picture in a reference channel are used for predicting samples for the areas outside of the picture in a current channel. [See Deng [0247-0248] CCLM. Also, see 0275-0278, neighboring block located outside the current picture are filled by padding.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by Brandenburg to add the teachings of Deng, in order to utilize reference samples outside a picture boundary for other obvious prediction techniques in the video compression standard such as cross-component prediction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. (US 20260012632) - Multi-Directional Boundary padding, which uses the motion vector to locate a reference area in a reference frame and exploits different spatial prediction modes (such as angular intra) to extend the reference frame border [0027], the current block within the picture is an intra mode coded block, the same intra mode can be used (for example, the same intra angular mode) to generate the padded results for the sample outside of picture boundary [0055], Template-based intra mode derivation is performed to derive padded samples [0057], and Decoder side intra mode derivation is performed to derive padded samples [0058].
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 JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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 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 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights