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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Claim 10 recites the same scope as claim 5 with the same dependency on claim 1. Examiner suggests changing the dependency of claim 10 from claim 1 to claim 6.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on05/07/2025; 01/06/2026; 02/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RATH (WO 2018219925 A1) in view of Liu (US 20200329235 A1).
Regarding claim 1, RATH teaches a method for encoding a video bitstream with intra bi-prediction and multiple reference line intra prediction ([52] FIG. 4A illustrates an exemplary implementation of bi-directional intra prediction (positive direction) with two predictors for an exemplary target sample at (x,y) by using predictor Pi from the top reference array and predictor P.sub.2 from the left reference array.), the method comprising:
receiving, by a device comprising a memory storing instructions and a processor in communication with the memory, a video bitstream for a block (an apparatus for video encoding, comprising at least a memory and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: access a directional intra prediction mode for a current block of a picture in a video [7]);
determining, by the device, whether an intra bi-prediction is permitted for the block (Otherwise, for a directional mode, the decoder decodes (630) a bi-directional flag indicating (640) whether uni-directional or bi-directional intra prediction is used for the current block. [60]);
when the intra bi-prediction is permitted for the block, determining whether to actually apply the intra bi-prediction to the block based a reference of the block (Alternatively, predictor P may be predicted from spatial neighbor blocks. Based on bit B and predictor P, the bi-directional flag F can be determined (890) as B (XOR) F, to indicate whether or not to use bi-directional prediction. [91]); and
encoding the block by applying the intra bi-prediction when it is determined to actually apply the intra bi-prediction, and otherwise encoding the block by applying an intra single- prediction (Fig. 5: At step 595, the intra prediction mode and prediction residual are encoded. If the intra prediction mode is a directional mode, the bi-directional flag is also encoded (595), for example, context encoded with context 0, or a mode-dependent context.).
RATH does not explicitly teach the following limitations, however, in an analogous art, Liu teaches apply the intra bi-prediction to the block based a reference line index of the block ([0155] At step 1709, a reference line index is decoded from the encoding when the selected intra-prediction mode is included in the intra-prediction mode subset. The reference line index indicates a selected reference line from the plurality of reference lines for the selected intra-prediction mode.)
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to take the teachings of Liu and apply them to RATH. One would be motivated as such because by employing different reference lines, a more accurate prediction signal can be derived, which may increase coding efficiency in some cases by reducing residual samples (Liu: [0097]).
Regarding claim 2, RATH in view Liu teaches the method of claim 1. Liu teaches wherein determining whether to actually apply the intra bi- prediction based on the reference line index of the block comprises:
determining to actually apply the intra bi-prediction to the block when the reference line index of the block is zero (The encoder selects the reference line with the best rate distortion cost. The index of the selected reference line is signaled to the decoder in the bitstream. Here, RefLine0 may be called the original reference line (e.g., primary reference line 711), and RefLine1˜RefLineM can be referred to as further reference lines or alternative reference lines. ); and
determining to apply an intra single-prediction to the block when the reference line index of the block is non-zero (The encoder selects the reference line with the best rate distortion cost. The index of the selected reference line is signaled to the decoder in the bitstream. Here, RefLine0 may be called the original reference line (e.g., primary reference line 711), and RefLine1˜RefLineM can be referred to as further reference lines or alternative reference lines.).
The same motivation used to combined RATH in view Liu in claim 1 is applicable.
Regarding claim 3, RATH in view Liu teaches the method of claim 1. RATH teaches wherein determining whether to actually apply the intra bi- prediction based on the reference line index of the block comprises:
determining to actually apply the intra bi-prediction to the block when the reference line index of the block is zero and an intra-prediction angle for the block is smaller than 90 degrees or larger than 180 degrees ([33] The directions with non-negative displacements (i.e., HO to H+32 and V0 to V+32) are also denoted as positive directions, and the directions with negative displacements (i.e., H-2 to H-26 and V-2 to V-32) are also denoted as negative directions.); and determining to appl the intra single-prediction to the block otherwise (Fig. 7 & Fig. 8A: [74] Referring to FIG. 4A, let R-^ and R.sub.2 denote the two reference sample values on the left reference array at (0,— ) and (0, W + H) , respectively. Let R.sub.1 T and R.sub.2>T denote the corresponding samples along the prediction line on the top reference array. For the target block at the particular intra prediction mode, we may choose bi-directional prediction over unidirectional one if the following condition is satisfied ).
Regarding claim 4, RATH in view Liu teaches the method of claim 1. RATH teaches wherein when determining to actually apply the intra bi- prediction to the block, the method further comprises disabling a reference sample filtering process (In presence of other intra prediction tools such as PDPC, Reference sample adaptive filtering (RSAF), NSST, as non-limiting examples, if the encoder decides not to apply bidirectional intra prediction if the flag for the corresponding tool is activated, the parsing is still not an issue since the decoder can parse the flag of the other tool first, and subsequently decide if to parse a flag for the bi-directional intra prediction or skip it.).
Regarding claim 5, RATH in view Liu teaches the method of claim 1. RATH teaches wherein performing the intra bi-prediction to the block comprises:
determining a first predictor based on the reference line index of the block (predicting (850) a sample value of said sample, by using a first predictor and a second predictor [claim 1]);
determining a second predictor based on the reference line index of the block (predicting (850) a sample value of said sample, by using a first predictor and a second predictor [claim 1]); and
determining a final predictor for the block according to a weighted calculation between the first predictor and the second predictor (wherein both said first and second predictors are determined to be used for said intra prediction mode when a weighted sum [claim 7]).
Regarding claims 6-10, the method for decoding a video bitstream of claim 6-10 is rejected under the same arts and evidence used to reject the method for encoding a video bitstream of claim 1-5.
Regarding claims 11-15, the electronic device of claims 11-15 is rejected under the same arts and evidence used to reject the method for encoding a video bitstream of claim 1-5.
Regarding claim 16, the electronic device of claim 16 is rejected under the same arts and evidence used to reject the method for encoding a video bitstream of claim 1-5.
Regarding claim 17, the electronic device of claim 17 is rejected under the same arts and evidence used to reject the method for encoding a video bitstream of claim 1-5.
Regarding claim 18, the electronic device of claim 18 is rejected under the same arts and evidence used to reject the method for encoding a video bitstream of claim 1-5.
Regarding claim 19, the electronic device of claim 19 is rejected under the same arts and evidence used to reject the method for encoding a video bitstream of claim 1-5.
Regarding claim 20, the electronic device of claim 20 is rejected under the same arts and evidence used to reject the method for encoding a video bitstream of claim 1-5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 57127227384. 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.
/HESHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights