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
Receipt is acknowledged 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 § 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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0347103 A1 (“Yu”) in view of US 2020/0099925 A1 (“Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses an image decoding method, the method comprising:
determining an intra prediction mode of a current block (e.g. see prediction information indicating intra prediction modes, e.g. see at least paragraphs [0068], [0114]);
determining a first reference pixel of a current pixel in the current block (e.g. see projected pixel value(s) on the main reference line, e.g. reference row in Fig. 8 adjacent/not adjacent to the top, e.g. see at least paragraph [0090]) according to a prediction direction of the intra prediction mode (e.g. see angular direction, e.g. see at least paragraph [0090]) in response that the intra prediction mode of the current block is a directional intra prediction mode (e.g. see directional modes in Fig. 5, e.g. see at least paragraph [0035]);
determining a second reference pixel of the current pixel (e.g. see projected pixel value(s) on the side reference line, reference column in Fig. 8 adjacent/not adjacent to the side, e.g. see at least paragraph [0090]) according to an inverse direction of the prediction direction of the intra prediction mode (e.g. see angular direction, e.g. see at least paragraph [0090]) in response that the prediction direction of the intra prediction mode is in a predetermined direction range (e.g. see pixels at projected position on both a top reference row and left reference column, i.e. inverse direction of each other, according to an angular direction of the intra prediction mode, e.g. see paragraph [0090]; thus, the angular direction is necessitated to be in a range that points to both top reference row and left reference column; for example, horizontal and vertical modes, e.g. paragraph [0111] and Fig. 5, would not project to both the top reference row and left reference column); and
determining a prediction value of the current pixel based on a first weight of the first reference pixel and a second weight of the second reference pixel,
wherein the first weight is determined to be same or greater than the second weight (e.g. see predictor pixel P[x,y] obtained by combining the projected pixel value(s) on the main reference line with the projected pixel value(s) on the side reference by weighting according to distance between the predictor pixels and projected pixel positions, e.g. see w1 and w2 in (1), e.g. see at least paragraphs [0090]-[0093]; thus, when w1 is determined to be equal or greater than w2 based on distance, the limitations are met).
Although Yu discloses wherein the first weight is determined to be same or greater than the second weight, it is noted Yu differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose regardless of the location of the current pixel. Lee however, teaches
wherein the first weight is determined to be same or greater than the second weight regardless of the location of the current pixel (e.g. see when the current block is a non-square block whose width is greater than height (e.g. see Fig. 24, paragraph [0328]) a weight applied to at least a part of top reference samples may be set to have a value greater than a weight applied to at least a part of left reference samples, e.g. see at least paragraph [0325]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Yu and Lee before him/her, to modify The weighted angular prediction coding for intra coding of Yu with Lee in order to provide a method and apparatus for performing intra prediction efficiently for an encoding/decoding target block in encoding/decoding a video signal.
Regarding claims 2-3, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on pages 7-8 of the Remarks that "(1) Lee does not disclose or suggest any weighting criterion based on the location of the current pixel" because "Lee simply does not employ 'location of the current pixel' as a variable in determining the weights at all, in contrast to the claimed invention".
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claim limitations recite "wherein the first weight is determined to be same or greater than the second weight regardless of the location of the current pixel." The limitation "where in the first weight and the second weight are determined based on a location of the current pixel" had been deleted from the claims.
Applicant further asserts on page 8 that "(2) Lee does not disclose that the weight applied to the longer side is uniformly greater than the weight applied to the shorter side, let alone regardless of the location of the current pixel" because "the determinative factor for assigning the higher weight (weight of 3) in Lee is the proximity of the reference sample to the boundary of the current block, not whether the reference sample belongs to the 'longer side' or 'shorter side' of the block".
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, it is noted that the claim limitations recite "wherein the first weight is determined to be same or greater than the second weight regardless of the location of the current pixel." The argument is not persuasive because "uniformly greater than" is not in the claims; further, the claim specifically recites "same or greater".
For at least these reasons the prior art meet the limitations in the broadest reasonable sense.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo et al., US 20140092980 A1, discloses a METHOD AND APPARATUS OF DIRECTIONAL INTRA PREDICTION
Jang et al., US 20200236361 A1, discloses an INTRA PREDICTION MODE BASED IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND APPARATUS THEREFOR
Li et al., US 20190141318 A1, discloses an INTRA-PICTURE PREDICTION USING NON-ADJACENT REFERENCE LINES OF SAMPLE VALUES
Chang, US 20190082194 A1, discloses a DEVICE AND METHOD FOR CODING VIDEO DATA BASED ON MULTIPLE REFERENCE LINES
Xu et al., US 20170272757 A1, discloses a METHOD AND APPARATUS OF VIDEO CODING
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 FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 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, Anna M Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights