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 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 applications the case maybe, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Lee et al. (US 2024/0073448) (Ha Hyun Lee).
Claim 13, a bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the 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 storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 13 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by REFERENCE which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Paragraph 100 and Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses that an image decoding method, comprising: determining a reference block of a current block based on motion information of the current block [See Paragraphs 5-18 and 129-139]; generating a prediction sample of the current block by applying a filter to at least one of a reference sample belonging to the reference block, at least one neighboring sample adjacent to the reference sample, or a predetermined offset; [See Paragraphs 139-152 and 292-305]; and reconstructing the current block based on the prediction sample. Select [See abstract and Paragraphs 10-26. 75,139-153 and 210-220].
Regarding Claim 2, Lee discloses wherein the neighboring sample includes at least one of a left neighboring sample, a top neighboring sample, a left neighboring sample, or a bottom neighboring sample [See abstract and Paragraphs 74-75,178, 208 and 244].
Regarding Claim 3, Lee discloses wherein a filter coefficient of the filter is determined based on at least one sample belonging to a first neighboring area of the current block and at least one sample belonging to a second neighboring area of the reference block [See Paragraphs xx].
Regarding Claim 4, Lee discloses wherein the second neighboring area includes a template of the reference block and an area extended by a N-sample line from the template of the reference block [See Paragraphs 190-210].
Regarding Claim 5, Lee discloses wherein the template includes at least one of a left neighboring area, a top neighboring area, a top-left neighboring area, a top-right neighboring area, or a bottom-left neighboring area [See Paragraphs 209].
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 13, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 1 above, therefore the ground for rejecting claim l also applies here.
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 byt he manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2024/0073448) (Ha Hyun Lee) in view of Tsai et al. (US 2025/0310513) (Chia-Ming Tsai).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein at least one of a position or a size of the template is determined based on a size of the reference block
However, Tsai discloses wherein at least one of a position or a size of the template is determined based on a size of the reference block [See Paragraphs 35-43 and 67-83].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Lee to add the teachings in Tsai as above, to provide a method that video compression efficiency, and a video coder uses video coding tools or prediction modes that use predictors [See Abstract Tsai].
Regarding Claim 7, Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the template is determined as any one of a plurality of template candidates based on template type information signaled through a bitstream, and wherein the template type information represents at least one of a position or a size of the template
However, Tsai discloses wherein the template is determined as any one of a plurality of template candidates based on template type information signaled through a bitstream, and wherein the template type information represents at least one of a position or a size of the template [See Paragraphs 35-43 and 67-83].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Lee to add the teachings in Tsai as above, to provide a method that video compression efficiency, and a video coder uses video coding tools or prediction modes that use predictors [See Abstract Tsai].
Regarding Claim 8, Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the filter coefficient of the filter is derived by using some samples belonging to the second neighboring area of the reference block, and wherein the some samples are specified based on a predetermined sampling rate and the predetermined offset.
However, Tsai discloses wherein the filter coefficient of the filter is derived by using some samples belonging to the second neighboring area of the reference block, and wherein the some samples are specified based on a predetermined sampling rate and the predetermined offset [See Paragraphs 46-53].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Lee to add the teachings in Tsai as above, to provide a method that video compression efficiency, and a video coder uses video coding tools or prediction modes that use predictors [See Abstract Tsai].
Regarding Claim 9, Lee doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the filter is determined as any one of a plurality of filters based on a value of the reference sample and a predetermined threshold.
However, Tsai discloses wherein the filter is determined as any one of a plurality of filters based on a value of the reference sample and a predetermined threshold [See Paragraphs 74-85].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at time of invention to modify the system disclosed by Lee to add the teachings in Tsai as above, to provide a method that video compression efficiency, and a video coder uses video coding tools or prediction modes that use predictors [See Abstract Tsai].
Regarding Claim 10, Lee discloses wherein samples within a template of the reference block are classified into a plurality of sample intervals based on the predetermined threshold, and wherein the plurality of filters are derived for the plurality of sample intervals, respectively [See Paragraphs 294-307].
Regarding Claim 11, Lee discloses wherein the prediction sample is generated based on a plurality of filters including the filter, and wherein the plurality of filters are derived from a plurality of template candidates, respectively [See Paragraphs 204-210].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSION B OWENS whose telephone number is (571)272-3934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/TSION B OWENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights