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
In light of the changes made to the specification, the objections pertaining to a non-descriptive tile is withdrawn.
In light of the changes made to claim 22, the objection pertaining to incorrect grammar is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 18, applicant argues that Chuang and Chang fail to teach or disclose “compute the sample-based weights based on one or more parameters for each template determined by the template-based intra mode derivation; wherein the sample-based weights are determine based on one or more of: a distortion between the predictor obtained on a template and the template; or distortions computed for each template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode on a template or a comparison of the distortions to each other,” particularly stating that Chang was not cited for this purpose and as such any proper combination of the cited references is therefore also necessarily deficient.
However, reading the claims in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in ¶0095 of Chang, wherein a distortion is taught as a cost, a cost is then respectively computed for each TIMD mode [and then compared] which is then used to determine the sample-based weights as per claimed, as well as also teaching these sample-based weights being based on one or more parameters for each template which may be seen in the equations provided.
Therefore the rejection of claim(s) 18 is/are maintained. Regarding arguments pertaining to claim(s) 32, for reasons similar to those discussed above for claim 18, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Therefore the rejection of claim(s) 32 is/are maintained. Regarding claim(s) 19-20, 22-31, 33-34 and 36-37 the claim(s) is/are dependent upon claim(s) 18 and 32 and are still rejected under the same basis as claim(s) 18 and 32 and the arguments presented above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 18-20, 22, 24-34 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (“Chuang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0215521) in view of Chang et al. (“Chang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0336716).
It is to be noted that the information provided by Chang is also supported in the provision application of 63/362939, filed Mar. 21, 2023.
In regards to claim 18, Chuang teaches an apparatus comprising
at least one processor (See ¶0104 and 0109); and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (See ¶0104 and 0109 wherein it is understood the program code is stored in memory and used by the processor), cause the apparatus at least to:
decode encoded video data to obtain reconstructed samples of a picture (See ¶0012, 0020 and 0106 in view of FIG. 2 and 17 wherein neighboring reconstructed samples of a current block are used as a template);
use the reconstructed samples to intra-predict a current block of the picture (See ¶0012, 0020 and 0106 in view of FIG. 2 and 17);
divide an area in a surrounding of the current block into at least two templates formed of the reconstructed samples at specific locations with respect to the current block (See ¶0044-0048 in view of FIG. 2 and 3 wherein areas around the current block may be divided into at least an above template and a left template);
determine, for each template, one or more intra-prediction modes by template-based intra mode derivation (See ¶0048 wherein one DIMD derived intra mode is derived using only the above template, and another DIMD is derived using intra mode only from the left template);
compute at least two predictors of the current block based on the determined intra-prediction modes (See ¶0046 and 0050-0054 wherein two predictors are determined based on the above and left templates); and
combine the at least two predictors together using blending to form a prediction block for the current block, wherein to perform combining, the apparatus is further caused to use sample-based weights (See ¶0046 and 0050-0054 wherein two predictors are determined based on the above and left templates, from which a predictor for a current block may then be generated by a weighted sum of these two DIMD derived intra predictors, wherein further description of weighting may be seen in at least 0056, 0058, 0078-0080 and 0092-0099 for various iterations).
Chuang, however, fails to teach compute the sample-based weights based on one or more parameters for each template determined by the template-based intra mode derivation; wherein the sample-based weights are determine based on one or more of: a distortion between the predictor obtained on a template and the template; or distortions computed for each template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode on a template or a comparison of the distortions to each other.
In a similar endeavor Chang teaches compute the sample-based weights based on one or more parameters for each template determined by the template-based intra mode derivation (See ¶0095 wherein the weights may be based on various parameters [it is noted by the examiner that the claim language does not distinguish what type of parameter is being used, nor how a parameter may be considered] for each TIMD mode [template-based intra mode derivation, thus the corresponding template]);
wherein the sample-based weights are determined based on one or more of:
a distortion between the predictor obtained on a template and the template; or distortions computed for each template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode on a template or a comparison of the distortions to each other (See ¶0095 wherein a distortion is taught as a cost, specifically a cost is respectively computed for each TIMD mode [and then compared] which is then used to determine the sample-based weights as per claimed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Chang into Chuang because it allows for consideration of cost in the consideration of a predictor from a TIMD for mode determination as described in ¶0095.
It is noted by the examiner that an additional prior art reference was found which also teaches the amended claim language and is being provided to the applicant, as a point of reference, as it cites what is to be believed the origin of such calculations, see ¶0145 of Chen et al. [U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0079960] wherein the distortion is taught as the cost, and describes the weight value being based on the costs between the two modes, while additionally providing that the cost [SATD] between a prediction and a template region may be used as well, and points to JVET-V0098 as the origin of such techniques.
In regards to claim 19, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
determine one or more parameters for each template and for each determined intra-prediction mode (See ¶0012-0014 wherein a parameter may be taught as the distortion between the predicted pixels and the reconstructed pixels in each template which are compared and recorded, which then leads to each mode as described in 0044-0048); and
form the prediction block for the current block using the determined intra-prediction modes and the one or more parameters corresponding to each template (See ¶0012-0014 in view of 0044-0048, FIG. 2, 3 and 7).
In regards to claim 20, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the one or more parameters for each template comprise distortions or costs determined by template-based intra mode derivation (See ¶0012-0014, 0044-0048 and 0050-0054 wherein both costs and distortions are taken into consideration).
In regards to claim 22, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 18 , wherein the apparatus is further caused to compute the sample-based weights based on the at least two templates used to determine the intra-prediction modes (See ¶0014 and 0021-0024 wherein the first and second DIMD predictors may be blended using sample-based weighting).
In regards to claim 24, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: infer usage of sample-based weighting based on the intra-prediction modes determined based on at least one of:
a template-based intra prediction; or on characteristics of the current block (See ¶0012-0014 and 0044-0052 wherein, as an example, a chosen intra prediction mode may be selected on a minimum distortion [thus a characteristic], or as another example based on the template data, or as the most probable mode, etc.).
In regards to claim 25, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
use the intra-prediction modes specific to each template to determine one or more blending parameters for the current block (See ¶0012-0014, 0044-0048, 0051-000058 in view of 0020, 0023 and FIG. 13A-13B wherein the derived DIMD mode combines the DIMD modes for the templates, and the weighting factors can be further dependent on the derived DIMD mode); and
form the prediction block for the current block using the determined intra-prediction modes and the determined blending parameters, in addition to the at least two predictors (See ¶0012-0014, 0044-0048, 0051-000058 in view of 0020, 0023 and FIG. 13A-13B).
In regards to claim 26, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
determine a number of candidate intra-prediction modes for the template based on one or more of:
the intra-prediction modes used in neighboring blocks, characteristics of the current block, a specific template, the intra-prediction modes selected for a different template, or modes included in a Most Probable Modes (MPM) list (See at least ¶0012-0015 and 0044-0056 wherein various modes may be chosen from and may be based on at least in consideration of the minimum distortion, MPM, etc.).
In regards to claim 27, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
determine a number of candidate intra-prediction modes for the template based on a location of the template with respect to the current block (See at least ¶0012-0014 wherein a number of available intra prediction modes may be based on whether template matching search is being used, also see 0103).
In regards to claim 28, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 26, wherein to select an intra-prediction mode for the at least two templates the apparatus is further caused to, for each of the at least two templates, perform:
compute a set of predictors using different intra-prediction modes (See at least ¶0012-0016, 0019-0022 and 0086-00097);
compare the predictors with samples of the at least two templates to define a distortion for each predictor (See ¶0012-0014 in view of FIG. 2 and 3); and
select that predictor for the at least two templates which produced a smallest distortion (See ¶0012-0014).
In regards to claim 29, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 28, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
combine the selected predictors to form the prediction block, weight samples of the selected predictors based on a determined criteria (See ¶0012-0014, 0044-0048, 0084-0099).
In regards to claim 30, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 29, wherein the determined criteria further comprises one or more of:
a location of a sample in the prediction block; or the template used to determine the intra-prediction modes (See ¶0014, 0019, 0023 wherein the derived modes for the left and the above templates can be combined by applying position-dependent weights, and therefore the weights for the samples may be based on the location of the sample, also the weighting based on determined intra mode and sample position may be based on the template used to determine the intra prediction mode).
In regards to claim 31, Chuang teaches the apparatus according to claim 29, wherein the apparatus is further caused to:
select an intra-prediction mode for one template of the at least two templates based on the intra-prediction mode selected for another template of the at least two templates (See ¶0016-0018).
In regards to claim 32, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 18 by Chuang in view of Chang.
In regards to claim 33, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 19 by Chuang in view of Chang.
In regards to claim 34, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 20 by Chuang in view of Chang.
In regards to claim 36, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 22 by Chuang in view of Chang.
Claim(s) 23 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chuang et al. (“Chuang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2019/0215521) in view of Chang et al. (“Chang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2023/0336716) and Jang (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0272388).
In regards to claim 23, Chuang fails to teach the apparatus according to claim 18, wherein the apparatus is further caused to: scale or normalize one or more parameters based on characteristics of the at least two templates.
In a similar endeavor Jang teaches scale or normalize one or more parameters based on characteristics of the at least two templates (See ¶0261 wherein the cost function may be based on a normalized SAD for template matching operations, this is taken in view of Chuang’s teachings of cost consideration).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Jang into Chuang because it allows for cost measurements as described in ¶0261 for consideration of a sum of absolute difference when template matching.
In regards to claim 37, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 23 by Chuang in view of Chang and Jang.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights