DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on September 17, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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 submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites “A recording medium configured to store a bitstream generated by an image encoding method, the storage medium comprising:”. This phrase is followed by several method steps – “setting a search range…”, “performing a template matching…”, and “…, deriving a prediction block…”. Thus, the claim purports to be directed to the recording medium itself. However, the claim then recites what are clearly not components of a recording medium, but encoding method steps. It is not clear whether Applicant is attempting to claim the recording medium itself or a method of encoding a bitstream. A storage/recording medium in and of itself cannot execute any method of coding - without a processor executing the functions stored in that medium, it is simply storage, its only function is to store. Accordingly, without the recitation of the execution of such instructions and a processor for doing so, it is not clear what applicant is attempting to claim – a recording medium storing a bitstream or a method of encoding. Accordingly, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
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)(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.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0016789 (“Lou”).
With respect to claim 20, 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 20 is directed to a recording medium storing a bitstream, and several elements that appear to describe how the bitstream is generated. These elements or steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the bitstream is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the recording medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. Therefore, those claim elements are not given patentable weight. Thus the claim scope is just a storage/recording medium storing data and is anticipated by Lou which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (see ¶155).
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)(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 1-3, 8-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0294166 (“Yan”), which corresponds to priority applications filed December 2022-March 2023.
With respect to claim 1, Yan teaches:
A method of decoding an image (see Abstract, Figs. 1, 3, item 30, ¶¶5-7, describing a method of decoding an image), the method comprising:
setting a search range for a template matching for a current block within a current picture (see Figs. 12, 18, ¶¶153-160, 264-274, describing setting a search range for a template matching of a current block within a current frame/picture in intraTMP);
performing a template matching for the search range to derive a block vector for the current block (see Fig. 12, ¶¶153-160, 264-275, 529, describing performing template matching for the search range to derive a block vector for the current block and that this IntraTMP template matching can be used to derive a block vector); and
deriving, based on the block vector, a prediction block of the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to element above, describing that based on this block vector, a predictor/prediction block of the current block may be derived).
With respect to claim 2, Yan additionally teaches:
wherein the search range includes a plurality of spatially separated sub-search ranges (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, including Figs. 12, 18, ¶¶22, 28, 154-158, 265-269, describing that the search range includes a plurality of spatially separated sub-search ranges, e.g., R1, R2, R3, R4).
With respect to claim 3, Yan additionally teaches:
wherein the search range includes at least one of a first sub-search range at a top position of the current block, a second sub-search range at a left position or a third sub-search range at a top-left position (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 2 above, describing that the search range includes a first sub-search range at a top position of the current block (e.g., R3), a second sub-search range at a left position (e.g., R4), and a third sub-search range at a top-left position (e.g., R1)).
With respect to claim 8, Yan additionally teaches:
wherein deriving the block vector includes performing an initial template matching at predefined integer positions set according to a predefined pattern within the search range (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the block vector is derived based on an initial template matching and Fig. 13, ¶¶23, 166, 169, 173, 209-214, 222, 329-330, describing that this template matching/template search process may include performing an initial template matching at predefined integer positions set according to a predefined pattern (see Fig 13) within the search range).
With respect to claim 9, Yan additionally teaches:
wherein deriving the block vector includes:
selecting an integer position having a minimum template matching cost among the predefined integer positions,
further performing an additional template matching on 1/2 pixel positions around a selected integer position,
selecting a 1/2 pixel position having the minimum template matching cost among the ½ pixel positions, and
further performing the additional template matching on 1/4 pixel positions around a selected 1/2 pixel position (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 above, describing deriving the block vector using intra TMP and that this intra TMP process includes identifying an optimal integer predicted template having a minimum template matching cost, i.e., selecting an integer position having a minimum template matching cost among the predefined integer positions; performing an additional half-pel template matching, i.e., performing an additional template matching on ½ pixel positions around a selected integer position (see Fig. 13 showing that the half pel positions are around the integer positions – i.e., including the selected position), selecting a half-pel template leading to minimum template matching cost, and that the additional template matching may also be performed on quarter-pel positions around the half pixel positions, i.e., including around any selected ½ pel position).
With respect to claim 11, Yan additionally teaches:
wherein the prediction block of the current block is obtained based on a weighted sum operation between a first prediction block derived based on a first block vector and a second prediction block derived based on a second block vector (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above, describing that the prediction blocks may be derived based on respective block vectors and Fig. 19, ¶¶170, 182-183, 231, 233, 235, 329-330, 529, describing that the prediction block of the current block may be obtained based on the weighted sum of multiple prediction block candidates/template matching blocks, i.e., prediction blocks based on respective block vectors – e.g., a first prediction block derived based on a first block vector and a second prediction block derived based on a second block vector, weighted to generate the final prediction).
With respect to claim 12, Yan additionally teaches:
wherein the first block vector is derived based on a first template, and the second block vector is derived based on a second template (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 11 above, including Fig. 19, ¶¶275-276, describing that the block vectors are derived based on a respective template, i.e., a first block vector is derived based on a first template and the second block vector is derived based on a second template).
With respect to claim 13, Yan additionally teaches:
A method of encoding an image (see Abstract, Figs. 1-2, item 20, ¶¶4, 8, describing a method of encoding an image), the method comprising:
setting a search range for a template matching for a current block within a current picture (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above);
performing a template matching for the search range to derive a block vector for the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above); and
based on the block vector, deriving a prediction block of the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 14, Yan additionally teaches:
wherein the search range includes a plurality of spatially separated sub-search ranges (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 2 above).
With respect to claim 15, Yan additionally teaches:
wherein the search range includes at least one of a first sub-search range at a top position of the current block, a second sub-search range at a left position or a third sub-search range at a top-left position (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 3 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.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0337884 (“Wang”), which corresponds to a priority application filed January 2023.
With respect to claim 4, Yan discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Yan teaches each and every element of dependent claim 2.
Yan does not explicitly disclose wherein whether a sub-search range is available is determined based on an availability of an adjacent block positioned in a direction toward which the sub-search range faces from the current block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wang discloses that it was known to determine sub-search range availability based on the availability of the adjacent block toward which the sub-search range faces, i.e.,:
wherein whether a sub-search range is available is determined based on an availability of an adjacent block positioned in a direction toward which the sub-search range faces from the current block (see Figs. 8, 10, ¶¶117, 166, 234, 381, describing that the search range availability may depend on the available reconstructed region (see such regions in Fig. 8) and may not exceed the available reconstructed region within the set search direction and that the search direction may be limited to only the left side, top side, etc. – whether a sub-search range is available is determined based on the availability of the adjacent reconstructed region, i.e., adjacent block, in the search direction, i.e., the direction toward which the sub-search range faces, from the current block).
Yan discloses the use of available regions/sub-search ranges (see citations above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the different ways to determine the availability of such regions/sub-search ranges and have understood that, as evidenced by Wang, one such way would have been to depend on the availability of the adjacent reconstructed regions in the direction the sub-search range/region faces. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, using such a method to determine the availability of the region/sub-range would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for basing the availability of a region/sub-range on the availability of the adjacent reconstructed regions in the direction the sub-search range/region faces in the coding system of Yan as taught by Wang.
With respect to claim 16, Yan discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Yan teaches each and every element of dependent claim 14 and Yan in view of Wang discloses all the elements of dependent claim 4, the combination of which is incorporated herein. Yan/Wang additionally discloses:
wherein whether a sub-search range is available is determined based on an availability of an adjacent block positioned in a direction toward which the sub-search range faces from the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 4 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 4 also apply to claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 5-7 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2026/0230606 (“Yu”), which corresponds to a priority application dated January 2023.
With respect to claim 5, Yan discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Yan in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of dependent claim 2.
Yan does not explicitly disclose wherein based on a block vector of an adjacent block adjacent to the current block, a size of the sub-search ranges is determined.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yu discloses that it was known to determine the size of the sub-search range based on the BV of an adjacent block:
wherein based on a block vector of an adjacent block adjacent to the current block, a size of the sub-search ranges is determined (see Figs. 3, 4A, 5C, ¶¶51-53, 79, 85, showing and describing that the size of the regions may be adjusted based on the IBC search region and that this IBC search region depends on the block vector of a previous, i.e., adjacent, CU – a size of the sub-search range is determined based on a block vector of an adjacent block adjacent to the current block).
Yan discloses the use of several sub-search ranges/regions (see citations above). At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with sub-search ranges and their boundaries/sizes and that, as evidenced by Yu, such boundaries/sizes may be adjusted. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, adjusting such sub-ranges as disclosed in Yu in the coding system of Yan would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for adjusting the sub-ranges/regions of Yan as taught by Yu.
With respect to claim 6, Yan discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Yan in view of Yu discloses each and every element of dependent claim 5. Yan/Yu also discloses:
wherein a size of a sub-search range including a position spaced apart from a position of the current block by the block vector of the adjacent block is expanded (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 5 above, showing and describing that the sub-search range includes a position spaced apart from a position of the current block by the block vector of the adjacent block and that the size of these sub-search ranges may be adjusted, including expansion to include areas of other sub-search ranges).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 5 also apply to claim 6.
With respect to claim 7, Yan discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Yan in view of Yu discloses each and every element of dependent claim 6. Yan/Yu additionally discloses:
wherein a size of a residual sub-search range not including the position is reduced (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 5-6 above, describing that each of the sub-search ranges sizes may be adjusted, including the expansion of one range to include portions of another range, and that that another range, i.e., which may be a residual sub-search range not including the position, is correspondingly reduced).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 6 also apply to claim 7.
With respect to claim 17, Yan discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Yan teaches each and every element of dependent claim 14 and Yan in view of Yu discloses all the elements of dependent claim 5, the combination of which is incorporated herein. Yan/Yu additionally discloses:
wherein based on a block vector of an adjacent block adjacent to the current block, a size of the sub-search ranges is determined (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 5 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 5 also apply to claim 17.
With respect to claim 18, Yan discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Yan teaches each and every element of dependent claim 17 and Yan in view of Yu. Yan/Yu additionally discloses:
wherein a size of a sub-search range including a position spaced apart from a position of the current block by the block vector of the adjacent block is expanded (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 6 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and a5lso apply to claim 18.
With respect to claim 19, Yan discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Yan teaches each and every element of dependent claim 18 and Yan in view of Yu. Yan/Yu additionally discloses:
wherein a size of a residual sub-search range not including the position is reduced (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 7 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claims 1 and 5 also apply to claim 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0223776 (“Li”), which corresponds to priority applications filed January and March 2023.
With respect to claim 10, Yan discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Yan teaches all the elements of dependent claim 9. Yan additionally teaches:
wherein a sample value of a sub-pixel position is obtained through an interpolation, and … (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8-9 above, and Fig. 13, ¶¶23, 78, 88, 99, 171-173, 212-214, 329, describing that the sample-value at the sub-integer/fractional pixel positions, i.e., sub-pixel positions, including ½ pixel positions and ¼ pixel positions, is obtained through interpolation, that the interpolation accuracy for the fractional-pel template matching may be half-pel or quarter-pel).
Yan does not explicitly disclose wherein an interpolation filter used to derive a sample value at the 1/2 pixel positions is different from an interpolation filter used to derive a sample value at the 1/4 pixel positions.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses that it was known to use different filter coefficients for different levels of precision, e.g., ½ and ¼, i.e.:
wherein an interpolation filter used to derive a sample value at the 1/2 pixel positions is different from an interpolation filter used to derive a sample value at the 1/4 pixel positions (see ¶182).
As detailed above, Yan discloses an intra TMP coding system that may use fractional precision template matching derived using interpolation filters (see citations above). Yan does not explicitly recite the details regarding such fractional precision filters. However, Li discloses that it was known for such filters to be different for different levels of precision, including ½ and ¼ pel precision. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with fractional precision template matching and the filters used therefore. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, using different filters for different levels of precision to achieve the interpolation for fractional template matching in the coding system of Yan, as taught by Li, would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for using different interpolation filters to derive sample values at different levels of precision including ½ and ¼ in the intra TMP coding system of Yan as taught by Li.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights