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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (US Provisional Applications 63/637,322; 63/635,618; and 63/633,840 the earliest of which 63/633,840 was filed on April 14th, 2024).
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended the Abstract and the Claims on October 16th, 2025.
Applicant amended claims 1 – 5.
The pending claims before the Election Requirement mailed on April 1st, 2026 were 1 – 20.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I in the reply filed on May 19th, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 7 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 19th, 2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The pending claims are 1 – 6.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 16th, 2025 and October 2nd, 2025 were filed before the mailing date of the First Action on the Merits (this Office Action). The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 165 line 2, the phrase “Th coded” should read as --The coded-- for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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) 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dumas, et al. (US PG PUB 2022/0360767 A1 referred to as “Dumas” throughout), and further in view of Wang, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0294141 A1 referred to as “Wang” throughout) and Reuze, et al. (US PGPUB 2025/0392748 A1 referred to as “Reuze” throughout).
Regarding claim 1, Dumas teaches a matrix approach to weighting intra prediction candidates with weights learned / trained. Wang teaches additional considerations in selecting intra prediction modes including fusion of intra modes to modify candidates for the matrix techniques of Dumas. Reuze teaches cost considerations in selecting intra modes including metrics / weights considerations and adjustments based on costs of the intra mode to use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dumas to include intra modes for consideration as taught by Wang with cost and conditions as taught by Reuze. The combination teaches
receiving a video bitstream including coded information of a current block in a current picture [Dumas Figure 2 (decoder – see at least reference characters 230 and 260) as well as Paragraphs 63 – 69 (decoding blocks with side information / mode information for prediction)], the coded information indicating a plurality of candidate intra prediction modes for the current block [Dumas Figure 2 (decoder – see at least reference characters 230 and 260), 6 – 8 and 13 – 15 (see at least the MPM lists and the inclusion of MIP / SMIP in the list for intra prediction selection) as well as Paragraphs 63 – 69 (decoding blocks with side information / mode information for prediction). 71 – 72, 79 – 81, and 93 – 102 (lists of modes ordered for intra prediction including the use MIP / SMIP modes for selection)];
determining two or more predictors based on the plurality of candidate intra prediction modes for the current block according to a pre-defined condition [Dumas Figures 6 – 7 and 13 – 18 (see the tables with conditions on the mode lists where MPM lists of intra modes are used) as well as Paragraphs 93 – 104 (conditions on the available intra modes / matrices available for MIP); Wang Figures 6 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 124 – 127 (including Table 2-1 in which the block shape (ratio for non-spare blocks) affect prediction mode candidates available similar to Reuze Table 2) and 624 – 636 (blocks size condition affecting available intra prediction techniques / combination of intra prediction techniques))], at least one of the two or more predictors being a training-based predictor and generated based on training-based intra prediction mode of the plurality of candidate intra prediction modes [Dumas Figures 9 – 14 and 18 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 103 – 110 (signaling MIP / weighted intra mode) and 115 – 128 (samples for intra prediction modes used to train for SMIP / MIP prediction); Wang Paragraphs 624 – 634 (MIP included in set of allowed intra modes for prediction); Reuze Paragraphs 155 – 156 and 182 – 188 (MIP using direction modes which are used to adapt / train the MIP mode)], parameters of the training-based intra prediction mode being pre-trained [Dumas Figures 9 – 18 as well as Paragraphs 115 – 129 (training algorithm for the weights in the MIP intra mode) or 154 and 164 (neural network based training of parameters / weights); Reuze Paragraphs 223 – 226 (weights based on costs to combine candidate predictors / fusion of different intra techniques / modes including fixed / known eights rendering obvious the “pre-trained” claimed)]; and
reconstructing the current block based on a weighted combination of the two or more predictors [Dumas Figures 9 – 12 (see weights applied on predictors / based on weighting combination of modes) as well as Paragraphs 91 – 102 (matrix weights of predictors) and 126 – 129 (weighting intra modes for reconstruction of the block / picture); Wang Paragraphs 384 – 390 (weighting predictors), 472 – 480 (fusion with weights between intra modes); Reuze Figures 3 (decoder and see at least reference characters 330, 360, and 373) as well as 19 – 20 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 81 – 87 (general reconstruction of blocks), 89 – 91 (weighing two or more intra predictors for decoding / block reconstruction), 155 – 162 (reconstructing based on weights and fusion of intra prediction modes), and 182 – 188 (weighting intra modes / fusion for MIP)].
The motivation to combine Wang with Dumas is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of combining intra prediction techniques [Wang Paragraph 428 and 472 – 473] in order to improve to improve coding efficiency [Wang Paragraphs 655 – 658 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
The motivation to combine Reuze with Wang and Dumas is to combine features in the same / related field of invention of intra prediction techniques for encoding / decoding video [Reuze Paragraph 2] in order to improve compression efficiency [Reuze Paragraphs 2 – 3 as well as 72 – 75 where the Examiner observes at least KSR Rationales (D) or (F) are also applicable].
This is the motivation to combine Dumas, Wang, and Reuze which will be used throughout the Rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Dumas teaches a matrix approach to weighting intra prediction candidates with weights learned / trained. Wang teaches additional considerations in selecting intra prediction modes including fusion of intra modes to modify candidates for the matrix techniques of Dumas. Reuze teaches cost considerations in selecting intra modes including metrics / weights considerations and adjustments based on costs of the intra mode to use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dumas to include intra modes for consideration as taught by Wang with cost and conditions as taught by Reuze. The combination teaches
applying the plurality of candidate intra prediction modes to reference samples of a template of the current block to generate a plurality of prediction values of the template [Dumas Figures 9 – 12 and 17 – 18 (see the lines around the block as an obvious variant of the claimed template) as well as Paragraphs 83 and 115 (neighboring areas for templates / samples for generation of prediction values); Wang Figures 20 – 21 and 45 – 49 (exemplary template / regions to use for intra prediction) as well as Paragraphs 231 – 232 and 623 – 265 (matrix weights used in the LIC technique as well); Reuze Figures 10 – 11 as well as Paragraphs 89 (selection of matrix weights thus obvious variant of the “second” predictor claimed), 103 – 110 (matrix derived using neighboring samples of the block is a defined region / template area), 209 (transpose of weight is the second predictor which may be signalled)];
determining a plurality of cost values between each of the plurality of prediction values and a reconstructed value of the template [Dumas Paragraphs 115 – 120 (see the signaling costs for each matrix computed to optimize weights); Wang Paragraphs 342 – 352 and 361 – 366 (costs per element in a merge list for intra – combinable with Tables in Figures 13 – 18 of Dumas showing ordering of the intra modes); Reuze Figures 20 – 21 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 85 – 90 (costs to minimize to select the intra prediction mode to use / overall prediction mode to use), 223 – 228 (costs for intra modes to possible combine modes / select weights / best mode)]; and
determining the two or more predictors based on two or more candidate intra prediction modes of the plurality of candidate intra prediction modes that correspond to cost values of the plurality of cost values larger than a threshold value [Dumas Paragraphs 115 – 120 (see the signaling costs for each matrix computed); Wang Paragraphs 342 – 352 and 361 – 366 (costs per element in a merge list for intra – combinable with Tables in Figures 13 – 18 of Dumas showing ordering of the intra modes); Reuze Figures 20 – 21 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 85 – 90 (costs to minimize to select the intra prediction mode to use / overall prediction mode to use), 216 – 218 (selection of predictors for large cost scenarios), 223 – 228 (costs for intra modes to possible combine modes / select weights / best mode where the weights are functions to combine the modes based on the cost determinations for the modes)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Dumas, Wang, and Reuze.
Regarding claim 3, Dumas teaches a matrix approach to weighting intra prediction candidates with weights learned / trained. Wang teaches additional considerations in selecting intra prediction modes including fusion of intra modes to modify candidates for the matrix techniques of Dumas. Reuze teaches cost considerations in selecting intra modes including metrics / weights considerations and adjustments based on costs of the intra mode to use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dumas to include intra modes for consideration as taught by Wang with cost and conditions as taught by Reuze. The combination teaches
the training-based intra prediction mode is a matrix-multiplication mode based on a matrix multiplication of a matrix of weight coefficients and neighboring reconstructed samples in a template of the current block [Dumas Figures 9 – 18 (Neighboring samples used for the matrix derivation and selection of matrices for MIP) as well as Paragraphs 91 – 101 (selection of matrix weights) and 115 – 129 (training algorithm for the weights in the MIP intra mode and using training based intra prediction mode), 154 – 156 and 164 (neural network based training of parameters / weights); Reuze Paragraphs 223 – 226 (weights based on costs to combine candidate predictors / fusion of different intra techniques / modes including fixed / known eights rendering obvious the “training” claimed)], and
the two or more predictors are two predictors that are generated by the matrix multiplication mode, a first one of the two predictors being obtained by a first matrix multiplication of a first matrix of weight coefficients and the neighboring reconstructed samples of the template and a second one of the two predictors being obtained by a second matrix multiplication of a second matrix of weight coefficients and the neighboring reconstructed samples of the template [Dumas Figures 9 – 18 (Neighboring samples used for the matrix derivation and selection of matrices for MIP and see conditions in Figures 15 – 17 were the conditions are to select matrices) and 20 – 23 (multiple matrix weights for predictor selection) as well as Paragraphs 91 – 101 (selection of matrix weights from multiple matrices for comparison / use in MIP) and 115 – 129 (training algorithm for the weights in the MIP intra mode and using training based intra prediction mode); Reuze Figures 10 – 11 as well as Paragraphs 89 (selection of matrix weights thus obvious variant of the “second” predictor claimed), 110 (multiple matrices for selection), 209 (transpose of weight is the second predictor which may be signalled), and 223 – 226 (weights based on costs to combine candidate predictors / fusion of different intra techniques / modes including fixed / known eights rendering obvious the “training” claimed)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Dumas, Wang, and Reuze.
Regarding claim 4, Dumas teaches a matrix approach to weighting intra prediction candidates with weights learned / trained. Wang teaches additional considerations in selecting intra prediction modes including fusion of intra modes to modify candidates for the matrix techniques of Dumas. Reuze teaches cost considerations in selecting intra modes including metrics / weights considerations and adjustments based on costs of the intra mode to use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dumas to include intra modes for consideration as taught by Wang with cost and conditions as taught by Reuze. The combination teaches
the two or more predictors are two predictors, a first one of the two predictors being generated by the training-based intra prediction mode [Dumas Figures 9 – 14 and 18 – 19 as well as Paragraphs 103 – 110 (signaling MIP / weighted intra mode) and 115 – 128 (samples for intra prediction modes used to train for SMIP / MIP prediction); Wang Paragraphs 624 – 634 (MIP included in set of allowed intra modes for prediction); Reuze Paragraphs 155 – 156 and 182 – 188 (MIP using direction modes which are used to adapt / train the MIP mode)], and a second one of the two predictors being generated by one of an angular mode, a planar mode, and a DC mode [Dumas Figures 9 – 18 (see the tables of MPM modes) as well Paragraphs 105 – 115 (variants ordering MIP / SMIP with DC and Planar candidate MPM modes); Wang Paragraphs 384 – 397 (DC and Planar mode candidates for intra prediction); Reuze Paragraphs 15 and 155 – 156 (planar and DC prediction to combine as candidates with matrix based intra prediction)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Dumas, Wang, and Reuze.
Regarding claim 5, Dumas teaches a matrix approach to weighting intra prediction candidates with weights learned / trained. Wang teaches additional considerations in selecting intra prediction modes including fusion of intra modes to modify candidates for the matrix techniques of Dumas. Reuze teaches cost considerations in selecting intra modes including metrics / weights considerations and adjustments based on costs of the intra mode to use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dumas to include intra modes for consideration as taught by Wang with cost and conditions as taught by Reuze. The combination teaches
wherein the pre-defined condition includes one of [See claim 1 for citations and also only one of the list of options is required below]:
a size of the current block is smaller than a pre-defined value [Dumas Paragraphs 77 – 81 and 91 (block shape / size affecting order of MPM modes and conditioning blocks for modes available) and 92 – 104 (block size / ration to select candidates for intra prediction / affects the MPM lists in Figures 9 – 11 or 13 – 18) combinable with Wang Figures 6 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 124 – 127 (including Table 2-1 in which the block shape affect prediction mode candidates available)],
a ratio between a width of the current block and a height of the current block is smaller thana than a pre-defined value [Dumas Paragraphs 77 – 81 and 91 (block shape / size affecting order of MPM modes and conditioning blocks for modes available) and 92 – 104 (block size / ration to select candidates for intra prediction / affects the MPM lists in Figures 9 – 11 or 13 – 18) combinable with Wang Figures 6 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 124 – 127 (including Table 2-1 in which the block shape (ratio for non-spare blocks) affect prediction mode candidates available similar to Reuze Table 2) and 624 – 636 (blocks size condition affecting available intra prediction techniques / combination of intra prediction techniques))],
the width of the current block and the height of the current block is smaller than a predefined value [Dumas Paragraphs 77 – 81 and 91 (block shape / size affecting order of MPM modes and conditioning blocks for modes available) and 92 – 104 (block size / ration to select candidates for intra prediction / affects the MPM lists in Figures 9 – 11 or 13 – 18) combinable with Wang Figures 6 – 7 as well as Paragraphs 124 – 127 (including Table 2-1 in which the block shape (ratio for non-spare blocks) affect prediction mode candidates available similar to Reuze Table 2) and 624 – 636 (blocks size condition affecting available intra prediction techniques / combination of intra prediction techniques))], and
a size of a template of the current block is equal to a pre-defined size [Reuze Figures 4 and 10 (subfigures included) as well as Paragraphs 105 – 110 (template size based on block size / modifications for candidates based on block and template size)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Dumas, Wang, and Reuze.
Regarding claim 6, Dumas teaches a matrix approach to weighting intra prediction candidates with weights learned / trained. Wang teaches additional considerations in selecting intra prediction modes including fusion of intra modes to modify candidates for the matrix techniques of Dumas. Reuze teaches cost considerations in selecting intra modes including metrics / weights considerations and adjustments based on costs of the intra mode to use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Dumas to include intra modes for consideration as taught by Wang with cost and conditions as taught by Reuze. The combination teaches
wherein the plurality of candidate intra prediction modes includes one of a planar mode, a DC mode, a mode equal to (2+4xK) when K is constrained to an integer from 0 to 16, and a mode equal to (2+2xK) when K is constrained an integer from 0 to 32 [Dumas Figures 9 – 18 (see the tables of MPM modes) as well Paragraphs 105 – 115 (variants ordering MIP / SMIP with DC and Planar candidate MPM modes); Wang Paragraphs 384 – 397 (DC and Planar mode candidates for intra prediction); Reuze Paragraphs 15 and 155 – 156 (planar and DC prediction to combine as candidates with matrix based intra prediction)].
See claim 1 for the motivation to combine Dumas, Wang, and Reuze.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang, et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0317554 A1 referred to as “Chang” throughout) teaches in Figure 18 combining intra prediction modes for selection / combination (e.g. fusing) with Figures 4 – 8 and 12 the various regions / lines / directions considered for fusing intra prediction modes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tyler W Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)270-5684. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/TYLER W. SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights