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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-14 recite a method for decoding an image (claims 1-12 and 14) or a method for encoding an image (claim 13). However, the methods described include steps of generating prediction samples but do not describe how the steps are related to decoding/encoding an image. Please review the language and amend the language as necessary.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 14 recites “a bitstream generated by an image encoding method according to claim 11, is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bitstream and the process is the method steps to generate the data/bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the computer readable recording medium storing the data or bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps).
Claim 11 is dependent claim of Claim 9 which depends on claim 2 which depends on claim 1. It is noted that Claim 13 is a method of encoding. Please also note claim 14’s 112 rejection for clarity below.
Patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id.
Claim 14 is directed to a computer-readable storing medium storing a bitstream (i.e. content of information) and the body of the claim recites steps/elements that describe how the bitstream is generated. These steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the video is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the video information and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the video information and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim limitations are afforded very little patentable weight.
Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by reference Kim (US 11,128,859 ) which recites a storage medium storing a data (Column 5, lines 40-47).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 14 sets forth a “computer readable storage medium.” However, the specification as originally filed does not explicitly define the computer readable storage medium by stating that it '. . . includes, but is not limited to' a number of various mediums (Para. 55). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage media (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is absent an explicit definition or is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6-8, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6-8 are unclear. Claim 6 recites wherein the first gradient is determined based on whether the first gradient is less than the second gradient. It is unclear how the first gradient is determined if the process requires the first gradient to be less than the second gradient.
Claim 14 recites “A computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream generated by an image encoding method according to claim 11.” Claim 11 is a dependent claim that depends on claim 9, which depends on claim 2, which depends on claim 1. Claim 1 is a method for decoding an image. Claim 13 is an independent claim and is a method for encoding an image. It is unclear if the applicant intended to depend from claim 13.
It is noted that if the applicant intended claim 13, the claim language is for a method for encoding an image and not an image encoding method. The claim language would be unclear and inconsistent language.
Claim 15 recites transmitting data and recites steps informing a bitstream. The claim recites transmitting the data including the bitstream. It is unclear the scope of data as there is no details describing data.
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, 2, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 11,128,859 ).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a method for decoding an image, comprising:
generating a first prediction sample for a current sample in a current block based on a left reference sample of the current block (Claim 1, Figure 3, 310);
generating a second prediction sample for the current sample based on a top reference sample of the current block (Claim 1, Figure 3, 310); and
generating a final prediction sample for the current sample based on a weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample ( Column 36, lines 36-67, Column 37, lines 1-6,Claim 1, Claim 6, Claim 5, the prediction sample of a current sample is generated based on a weighted sum which meets the limitation) wherein a weight for the weighted sum includes a first weight applied to the first prediction sample and a second weight applied to the second prediction sample (Claim 1, Claim 6, Claim 5, Claim 7) and
wherein the first weight is determined based on one or more gradients calculated from a neighboring region of the current block (Column 36, lines 42-46, 48-67, Column 37, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Kim discloses wherein the gradients calculated from the neighboring region include a first gradient and a second gradient, wherein the neighboring region is divided into a first neighboring region and a second neighboring region, and wherein the first neighboring region is a region including one or more reference samples belonging to a top neighboring block of the current block, and the second neighboring region is a region including one or more reference samples belonging to a left neighboring block of the current block (column 36, lines 42-46, 48-67, Column 37, lines 1-6, Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses a method for encoding an image, comprising:
generating a first prediction sample for a current sample in a current block based on a left reference sample of the current block (Claim 1, Figure 3, 310);
generating a second prediction sample for the current sample based on a top reference sample of the current block (Claim 1, Figure 3, 310); and
generating a final prediction sample for the current sample based on a weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample ( Column 36, lines 36-67, Column 37, lines 1-6,Claim 1, Claim 6, Claim 5, the prediction sample of a current sample is generated based on a weighted sum which meets the limitation) wherein a weight for the weighted sum includes a first weight applied to the first prediction sample and a second weight applied to the second prediction sample (Claim 1, Claim 6, Claim 5, Claim 7) and
wherein the first weight is determined based on one or more gradients calculated from a neighboring region of the current block (Column 36, lines 42-46, 48-67, Column 37, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 14, Kim discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Column 5, lines 40-47) generated by an image encoding method according to claim 11. See Claim Interpretation paragraph above.
Regarding Claim 15, Kim discloses a method for transmitting data, comprising:
obtaining a bitstream for image information (Figure 2, 200), wherein the bitstream is generated based on generating a first prediction sample for a current sample in a current block based on a left reference sample of the current block (Claim 1, Figure 3, 310);
generating a second prediction sample for the current sample based on a top reference sample of the current block (Claim 1, Figure 3, 310); and
generating a final prediction sample for the current sample based on a weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample (Column 36, lines 36-67, Column 37, lines 1-6,Claim 1, Claim 6, Claim 5, the prediction sample of a current sample is generated based on a weighted sum which meets the limitation); and
transmitting the data including the bitstream (Figure 2, bitstream, Column 11, lines 6-10),
wherein a weight for the weighted sum includes a first weight applied to the first prediction sample and a second weight applied to the second prediction sample (Column 36, lines 36-67, Column 37, lines 1-6,Claim 1, Claim 6, Claim 5), and wherein the first weight is determined based on one or more gradients calculated from a neighboring region of the current block (Column 36, lines 42-46, 48-67, Column 37, lines 1-6).
Claims 1, 2, 6, 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xie (US 2025/0133236).
Regarding Claim 1, Xie discloses a method for decoding an image, comprising:
generating a first prediction sample for a current sample in a current block based on a left reference sample of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055);
generating a second prediction sample for the current sample based on a top reference sample of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055); and
generating a final prediction sample for the current sample based on a weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample ( Page 5, paragraph 0055) wherein a weight for the weighted sum includes a first weight applied to the first prediction sample and a second weight applied to the second prediction sample (Page 5, paragraph 0055-0060) and
wherein the first weight is determined based on one or more gradients calculated from a neighboring region of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0060).
Regarding Claim 2, Xie discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Xie discloses wherein the gradients calculated from the neighboring region include a first gradient and a second gradient, wherein the neighboring region is divided into a first neighboring region and a second neighboring region, and wherein the first neighboring region is a region including one or more reference samples belonging to a top neighboring block of the current block, and the second neighboring region is a region including one or more reference samples belonging to a left neighboring block of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055-0060).
Regarding Claim 6, Xie discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Xie discloses wherein the first gradient is determined based on whether the first gradient is less than the second gradient (Page 5, paragraph 0059-0060).
Regarding Claim 12, Xie discloses all the limitations of Claim 1. Xie discloses wherein a weight determination based on the one or more gradients is adaptively performed based on at least one of a difference between the gradients calculated from the neighboring region, a size of the current block, a flag, or whether a reference sample in the neighboring region is available (Page 5, paragraph 0055, size of block).
Regarding Claim 13, Kim discloses a method for encoding an image, comprising:
generating a first prediction sample for a current sample in a current block based on a left reference sample of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055);
generating a second prediction sample for the current sample based on a top reference sample of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055); and
generating a final prediction sample for the current sample based on a weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample (Page 5, paragraph 0055-0060) wherein a weight for the weighted sum includes a first weight applied to the first prediction sample and a second weight applied to the second prediction sample (Page 5, paragraph 0055-0060) and
wherein the first weight is determined based on one or more gradients calculated from a neighboring region of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055-0060).
Regarding Claim 14, Xie discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream (Page 1, paragraph 0007) generated by an image encoding method according to claim 11. See Claim Interpretation paragraph above.
Regarding Claim 15, Xie discloses a method for transmitting data, comprising:
obtaining a bitstream for image information (Page 1, paragraph 0007, Figure 11, Figure 7, Figure 13), wherein the bitstream is generated based on generating a first prediction sample for a current sample in a current block based on a left reference sample of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055-0060);
generating a second prediction sample for the current sample based on a top reference sample of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055-0060); and
generating a final prediction sample for the current sample based on a weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample (Page 5, paragraph 0055-0060); and
transmitting the data including the bitstream (Page 3-4, paragraph 0038, Figure 1, Figure 12),
wherein a weight for the weighted sum includes a first weight applied to the first prediction sample and a second weight applied to the second prediction sample (Page 5, paragraph 0055-0060), and wherein the first weight is determined based on one or more gradients calculated from a neighboring region of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055-0060).
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.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Alshin et al (US 2018/0376165 and hereafter referred to as “Alshin”).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Kim discloses wherein the first gradient is derived based on one or more gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block (column 36, lines 42-46, 48-67, Column 37, lines 1-6, Figure 8). Kim does not explicitly disclose applying the one dimensional filter. Alshin discloses wherein the second gradient is derived based on one or more gradients calculated by applying the one-dimensional filter to the second neighboring region of the current block (Page 4, paragraph 0051, Page 7, paragraph 0094-0096, 0100, 0102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim to include the missing limitations as taught by Alshin in order to increase encoding and decoding efficiency (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Alshin.
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Kim discloses wherein the first gradient is derived based on one or more gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block (column 36, lines 42-46, 48-67, Column 37, lines 1-6, Figure 8). Kim does not explicitly disclose first gradient based on horizontal gradient and second gradient based on vertical gradient. Alshin discloses ,wherein the first gradient is derived based on one or more horizontal gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block, and wherein the second gradient is derived based on one or more vertical gradients calculated from the second neighboring region of the current (Page 7, paragraph 0096, 0099, 0104, Page 16, paragraph 0220-0225, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim to include the missing limitations as taught by Alshin in order to increase encoding and decoding efficiency (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Alshin.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Alshin.
Regarding Claim 3, Xie discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Xie discloses wherein the first gradient is derived based on one or more gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055). Kim does not explicitly disclose applying the one dimensional filter. Alshin discloses wherein the second gradient is derived based on one or more gradients calculated by applying the one-dimensional filter to the second neighboring region of the current block (Page 4, paragraph 0051, Page 7, paragraph 0094-0096, 0100, 0102). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before effective filing date of the invention to modify Xie to include the missing limitations as taught by Alshin in order to increase encoding and decoding efficiency (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Alshin.
Regarding Claim 4, Xie discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Xie discloses wherein the first gradient is derived based on one or more gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block Page 5, paragraph 0055). Kim does not explicitly disclose first gradient based on horizontal gradient and second gradient based on vertical gradient. Alshin discloses ,wherein the first gradient is derived based on one or more horizontal gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block, and wherein the second gradient is derived based on one or more vertical gradients calculated from the second neighboring region of the current (Page 7, paragraph 0096, 0099, 0104, Page 16, paragraph 0220-0225, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before effective filing date of the invention to modify Xie to include the missing limitations as taught by Alshin in order to increase encoding and decoding efficiency (Page 1, paragraph 0004) as disclosed by Alshin.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lee et al (US 2022/0030744 and hereafter referred to as “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Kim discloses wherein the first gradient is derived based on one or more gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block (column 36, lines 42-46, 48-67, Column 37, lines 1-6, Figure 8). Kim does not explicitly disclose the limitations. Lee discloses
wherein the first gradient is derived based on one or more horizontal gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block and one or more horizontal gradients calculated from the second neighboring region of the current block, and wherein the second gradient is derived based on one or more vertical gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block and one or more vertical gradients calculated from the second neighboring region of the current block (Figure 9, Page 22-23, paragraph 0317-0320, paragraph 0322). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim to include the missing limitations as taught by Lee in order to have high image encoding/decoding technique (Page 1, paragraph 0002) as disclosed by Lee.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 5, Xie discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Xie discloses wherein the first gradient is derived based on one or more gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0055). Kim does not explicitly disclose the limitations. Lee discloses wherein the first gradient is derived based on one or more horizontal gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block and one or more horizontal gradients calculated from the second neighboring region of the current block, and wherein the second gradient is derived based on one or more vertical gradients calculated from the first neighboring region of the current block and one or more vertical gradients calculated from the second neighboring region of the current block (Figure 9, Page 22-23, paragraph 0317-0320, paragraph 0322). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before effective filing date of the invention to modify Xie to include the missing limitations as taught by Lee in order to have high image encoding/decoding technique (Page 1, paragraph 0002) as disclosed by Lee.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Lim et al (US 2022/0086486 and hereafter referred to as “Lim”).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first weight is determined based on at least one of whether a width of the current block is greater than a height of the current block or whether the width and the height of the current block is equal. Lim discloses wherein the first weight is determined based on at least one of whether a width of the current block is greater than a height of the current block or whether the width and the height of the current block is equal (Page 25, paragraph 0435-0439). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before effective filing date of the invention to modify Kim to include the missing limitations as taught by Lim in order to improve coding efficiency (Page 1, paragraph 00047as disclosed by Lim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie in view of Lim.
Regarding Claim 9, Xie discloses all the limitations of Claim 2. Xie does not explicitly disclose wherein the first weight is determined based on at least one of whether a width of the current block is greater than a height of the current block or whether the width and the height of the current block is equal. Lim discloses wherein the first weight is determined based on at least one of whether a width of the current block is greater than a height of the current block or whether the width and the height of the current block is equal (Page 25, paragraph 0435-0439). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before effective filing date of the invention to modify Xie to include the missing limitations as taught by Lim in order to improve coding efficiency (Page 1, paragraph 00047as disclosed by Lim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10 and 11 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al (US 2023/0291930) discloses generating a first prediction sample for a current sample in a current block based on a left reference sample of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0057-0058); generating a second prediction sample for the current sample based on a top reference sample of the current block (Page 5, paragraph 0057-0058); and generating a final prediction sample for the current sample based on a weighted sum of the first prediction sample and the second prediction sample (Page 5, paragraph 0057, 0062, Table 2-2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZANA HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5943. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/FARZANA HOSSAIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights