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 . 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 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.
Response to Preliminary Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made in the claims and specification dated 10/09/2025 and enters for consideration. Claim 1 has been cancelled. Claims 2-21 have been newly added. Therefore claims 2-21 remain pending in the current application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/03/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-10, 12-21 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,015,765 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 2 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,015,765 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 2 between the instant application and the patent.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,015,765 B2 (Patent)
Claim 2
Claim 1
1
A method of video decoding, the method comprising:
A method of decoding performed in a decoder, the method comprising:
2
receiving coding information of a coding unit (CU) from a coded video bitstream;
receiving coded information of a coding unit (CU), a template region, and a plurality of reference regions from a coded video bitstream, the coded information including a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is predicted based on a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode and a second syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode including a set of candidate intra prediction modes, the template region being adjacent to the CU and each reference region of the plurality of reference regions comprising at least one reference line portion;
3
decoding, from the coding information, a syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted by a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode based on a plurality of reference lines for the CU; determining a plurality of first cost values associated with a plurality of candidate reference regions of a template region adjacent to the CU, each of the plurality of candidate reference regions including at least one of the plurality of reference lines, each of the plurality of first cost values being calculated as a difference between (i) prediction samples of the template region obtained based on a respective one of the plurality of candidate reference regions and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region;
in response to the second syntax element indicating that the CU is not intra predicted based on TIMD mode, decoding a syntax element associated with another intra coding mode, the other intra coding mode including one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM); in response to the first syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted based on the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode, determining a plurality of cost values associated with the template region and respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of reference regions, wherein each cost value is between (i) respective prediction samples of the template region based on samples in a respective one of the plurality of reference regions, and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region corresponding to the respective prediction samples;
4
selecting a reference region from the plurality of candidate reference regions based on the plurality of first cost values; and
selecting a reference region from the plurality of reference regions, the selected reference region corresponding to a lowest one among the plurality of cost values; and
5
reconstructing samples of the CU based on the selected reference region.
reconstructing samples of the CU based on the samples in the selected reference region.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 2 is a broader version of the patent claim 1 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 2 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1.
Claim 3 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,015,765 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 3 between the instant application and the patent.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,015,765 B2 (Patent)
Claim 3
Claim 1
1
The method of claim 2, wherein:
A method of decoding performed in a decoder, the method comprising:
2
the syntax element is a third syntax element, the coding information includes a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode associated with a set of candidate intra prediction modes, when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is intra predicted based on the TIMID mode, the third syntax element is decoded, and
receiving coded information of a coding unit (CU), a template region, and a plurality of reference regions from a coded video bitstream, the coded information including a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is predicted based on a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode and a second syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode including a set of candidate intra prediction modes, the template region being adjacent to the CU and each reference region of the plurality of reference regions comprising at least one reference line portion;
3
when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is not intra predicted based on the TIMD mode, a second syntax element is decoded, the second syntax element indicating whether the CU is coded by one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM).
in response to the second syntax element indicating that the CU is not intra predicted based on TIMD mode, decoding a syntax element associated with another intra coding mode, the other intra coding mode including one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM); in response to the first syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted based on the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode, determining a plurality of cost values associated with the template region and respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of reference regions, wherein each cost value is between (i) respective prediction samples of the template region based on samples in a respective one of the plurality of reference regions, and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region corresponding to the respective prediction samples;
4
selecting a reference region from the plurality of reference regions, the selected reference region corresponding to a lowest one among the plurality of cost values; and
5
reconstructing samples of the CU based on the samples in the selected reference region.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 3 is a broader version of the patent claim 1 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 3 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1.
Claim 12 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,015,765 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 12 between the instant application and the patent.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,015,765 B2 (Patent)
Claim 12
Claim 1
1
A method of video encoding, the method comprising:
A method of decoding performed in a decoder, the method comprising:
2
determining whether a coding unit (CU) is to be predicted by a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode based on a plurality of reference lines of the CU;
receiving coded information of a coding unit (CU), a template region, and a plurality of reference regions from a coded video bitstream, the coded information including a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is predicted based on a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode and a second syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode including a set of candidate intra prediction modes, the template region being adjacent to the CU and each reference region of the plurality of reference regions comprising at least one reference line portion;
3
when the CU is determined to be coded by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode, determining a plurality of first cost values associated with a plurality of candidate reference regions of a template region adjacent to the CU, each of the plurality of candidate reference regions including at least one of the plurality of reference lines, each of the plurality of first cost values being calculated as a difference between (i) prediction samples of the template region obtained based on a respective one of the plurality of candidate reference regions and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region;
in response to the second syntax element indicating that the CU is not intra predicted based on TIMD mode, decoding a syntax element associated with another intra coding mode, the other intra coding mode including one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM); in response to the first syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted based on the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode, determining a plurality of cost values associated with the template region and respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of reference regions, wherein each cost value is between (i) respective prediction samples of the template region based on samples in a respective one of the plurality of reference regions, and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region corresponding to the respective prediction samples;
4
selecting a reference region from the plurality of candidate reference regions based on the plurality of first cost values;
selecting a reference region from the plurality of reference regions, the selected reference region corresponding to a lowest one among the plurality of cost values; and
5
encoding samples of the CU into a bitstream based on the selected reference region; and encoding a syntax element in the bitstream, the syntax element indicated whether the CU is predicted by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode.
reconstructing samples of the CU based on the samples in the selected reference region.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that the instant application claim 12 is a video encoding method claim whereas patent claim 1 is a video decoding method claim. However, all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 12 is a broader version of the patent claim 1 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 12 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1 just because the former is a video encoding method and the latter is a video decoding method.
Claim 13 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,015,765 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 13 between the instant application and the patent.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,015,765 B2 (Patent)
Claim 13
Claim 1
1
The method of claim 12, wherein:
A method of decoding performed in a decoder, the method comprising:
2
the syntax element is a third syntax element, the bitstream includes a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode associated with a set of candidate intra prediction modes, when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is intra predicted based on the TIVMD mode, the third syntax element is encoded in the bitstream, and
receiving coded information of a coding unit (CU), a template region, and a plurality of reference regions from a coded video bitstream, the coded information including a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is predicted based on a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode and a second syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode including a set of candidate intra prediction modes, the template region being adjacent to the CU and each reference region of the plurality of reference regions comprising at least one reference line portion;
3
when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is not intra predicted based on the TIMD mode, a second syntax element is encoded in the bitstream, the second syntax element indicating whether the CU is coded by one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM).
in response to the second syntax element indicating that the CU is not intra predicted based on TIMD mode, decoding a syntax element associated with another intra coding mode, the other intra coding mode including one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM); in response to the first syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted based on the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode, determining a plurality of cost values associated with the template region and respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of reference regions, wherein each cost value is between (i) respective prediction samples of the template region based on samples in a respective one of the plurality of reference regions, and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region corresponding to the respective prediction samples;
4
selecting a reference region from the plurality of reference regions, the selected reference region corresponding to a lowest one among the plurality of cost values; and
5
reconstructing samples of the CU based on the samples in the selected reference region.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 13 is a broader version of the patent claim 1 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 13 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1.
Claim 21 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of Patent 12,015,765 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 21 between the instant application and the patent.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,015,765 B2 (Patent)
Claim 21
Claim 19
1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform an encoding method comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor to perform:
2
determining whether a coding unit (CU) is to be predicted by a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode based on a plurality of reference lines of the CU;
receiving coded information of a coding unit (CU), a template region, and a plurality of reference regions from a coded video bitstream, the coded information including a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is predicted based on a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode and
3
a second syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode including a set of candidate intra prediction modes, the template region being adjacent to the CU and each reference region of the plurality of reference regions comprising at least one reference line portion; in response to the second syntax element indicating that the CU is not intra predicted based on TIMD mode, decoding a syntax element associated with another intra coding mode, the other intra coding mode including one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM);
4
when the CU is determined to be coded by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode, determining a plurality of first cost values associated with a plurality of candidate reference regions of a template region adjacent to the CU, each of the plurality of candidate reference regions including at least one of the plurality of reference lines, each of the plurality of first cost values being calculated as a difference between prediction samples of the template region obtained based on a respective one of the plurality of candidate reference regions and reconstructed samples of the template region;
in response to the first syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted based on the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode, determining a plurality of cost values associated with the template region and respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of reference regions, wherein each cost value is between (i) respective prediction samples of the template region based on samples in a respective one of the plurality of reference regions, and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region corresponding to the respective prediction samples;
5
selecting a reference region from the plurality of candidate reference regions based on the plurality of first cost values;
selecting a reference region from the plurality of reference regions, the selected reference region corresponding to a lowest one among the plurality of cost values; and
6
encoding samples of the CU into a bitstream based on the selected reference region; encoding a syntax element in the bitstream, the syntax element indicated whether the CU is predicted by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode; and transmitting the encoded bitstream.
reconstructing samples of the CU based on the samples in the selected reference region.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that the instant application claim 21 is a video encoding CRM claim whereas patent claim 19 is a video decoding CRM claim. However, all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 21 is a broader version of the patent claim 19 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 21 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 19 just because the former is a video encoding CRM claim and the latter is a video decoding CRM claim.
Claims 4-10, 14-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-9, 3-9 of Patent 12,015,765 B2 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
Claim 11 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,015,765 B2 in view of Wang et al. (US PGPub 2022/0224915 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 11 between the instant application and the patent in view of Wang et al.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,015,765 B2 (Patent)
Claim 11
Claim 1
1
The method of claim 2, wherein the coding information includes a first syntax element when a fourth syntax element indicates that decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) is not used on the CU.
A method of decoding performed in a decoder, the method comprising:
2
receiving coded information of a coding unit (CU), a template region, and a plurality of reference regions from a coded video bitstream, the coded information including a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is predicted based on a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode and a second syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode including a set of candidate intra prediction modes, the template region being adjacent to the CU and each reference region of the plurality of reference regions comprising at least one reference line portion;
3
in response to the second syntax element indicating that the CU is not intra predicted based on TIMD mode, decoding a syntax element associated with another intra coding mode, the other intra coding mode including one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM); in response to the first syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted based on the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode, determining a plurality of cost values associated with the template region and respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of reference regions, wherein each cost value is between (i) respective prediction samples of the template region based on samples in a respective one of the plurality of reference regions, and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region corresponding to the respective prediction samples;
4
selecting a reference region from the plurality of reference regions, the selected reference region corresponding to a lowest one among the plurality of cost values; and
5
reconstructing samples of the CU based on the samples in the selected reference region.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. Although, the limitation of the instant application claim 11 is not present in the patent claim, but Wang et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach the same video decoding method where it teaches syntax elements regarding DIMD intra prediction mode ([0159]-[0160]). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the patent’s claimed invention of template matching based intra prediction to include Wang et al's usage of DIMD intra prediction mode, because to reduce the overhead of intra mode signaling, a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) approach can be used (Wang et al.; [0157]). Therefore, the instant application claim 11 as a whole is not patentable over the patent claim 1 in view of Wang et al.
Claims 2-21 of the instant application are also rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 2 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of Patent 12,375,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 2 between the instant application and the patent.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,375,645 B2 (Patent)
Claim 2
Claim 1
1
A method of video decoding, the method comprising:
A method of video decoding, the method comprising:
2
receiving coding information of a coding unit (CU) from a coded video bitstream;
receiving coding information of a coding unit (CU) from a coded video bitstream,
3
decoding, from the coding information, a syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted by a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode based on a plurality of reference lines for the CU; determining a plurality of first cost values associated with a plurality of candidate reference regions of a template region adjacent to the CU, each of the plurality of candidate reference regions including at least one of the plurality of reference lines, each of the plurality of first cost values being calculated as a difference between (i) prediction samples of the template region obtained based on a respective one of the plurality of candidate reference regions and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region;
the coding information including a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode associated with a set of candidate intra prediction modes;
4
selecting a reference region from the plurality of candidate reference regions based on the plurality of first cost values; and
decoding a second syntax element associated with another intra coding mode when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is not intra predicted based on the TIMD mode, the second syntax element indicating whether the other intra coding mode includes one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM); and
5
reconstructing samples of the CU based on the selected reference region.
reconstructing samples of the CU using one of the TIMD mode, the MIP mode, or the MPM based on at least one of the first syntax element and the second syntax element.
Claim 2
6
The method of claim 1,
7
wherein the coding information further includes a third syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted based on a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode, the method further comprises determining a plurality of cost values associated with a template region adjacent to the CU and respectively corresponding to each of a plurality of reference regions comprising at least one reference line portion, and
8
each of the plurality of cost values is determined according to a difference between (i) respective prediction samples of the template region determined based on samples in a respective one of the plurality of reference regions and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region corresponding to the respective prediction samples.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent claims 1 and 2. The instant application claim 2 is a broader version of the patent claims 1 and 2 since the patent claims have additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 2 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claims 1 and 2.
Claim 3 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,375,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 3 between the instant application and the patent.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,375,645 B2 (Patent)
Claim 3
Claim 1
1
The method of claim 2, wherein:
A method of video decoding, the method comprising:
2
the syntax element is a third syntax element, the coding information includes a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode associated with a set of candidate intra prediction modes, when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is intra predicted based on the TIMID mode, the third syntax element is decoded, and
receiving coding information of a coding unit (CU) from a coded video bitstream, the coding information including a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode associated with a set of candidate intra prediction modes;
3
when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is not intra predicted based on the TIMD mode, a second syntax element is decoded, the second syntax element indicating whether the CU is coded by one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM).
decoding a second syntax element associated with another intra coding mode when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is not intra predicted based on the TIMD mode, the second syntax element indicating whether the other intra coding mode includes one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM); and
4
reconstructing samples of the CU using one of the TIMD mode, the MIP mode, or the MPM based on at least one of the first syntax element and the second syntax element.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 3 is a broader version of the patent claim 1 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 3 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1.
Claim 12 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of Patent 12,375,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 12 between the instant application and the patent.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,375,645 B2 (Patent)
Claim 12
Claim 1
1
A method of video encoding, the method comprising:
A method of video decoding, the method comprising:
2
determining whether a coding unit (CU) is to be predicted by a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode based on a plurality of reference lines of the CU;
receiving coding information of a coding unit (CU) from a coded video bitstream,
3
when the CU is determined to be coded by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode, determining a plurality of first cost values associated with a plurality of candidate reference regions of a template region adjacent to the CU, each of the plurality of candidate reference regions including at least one of the plurality of reference lines, each of the plurality of first cost values being calculated as a difference between (i) prediction samples of the template region obtained based on a respective one of the plurality of candidate reference regions and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region;
the coding information including a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode associated with a set of candidate intra prediction modes;
4
selecting a reference region from the plurality of candidate reference regions based on the plurality of first cost values;
decoding a second syntax element associated with another intra coding mode when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is not intra predicted based on the TIMD mode, the second syntax element indicating whether the other intra coding mode includes one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM); and
5
encoding samples of the CU into a bitstream based on the selected reference region; and encoding a syntax element in the bitstream, the syntax element indicated whether the CU is predicted by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode.
reconstructing samples of the CU using one of the TIMD mode, the MIP mode, or the MPM based on at least one of the first syntax element and the second syntax element.
Claim 2
6
The method of claim 1,
7
wherein the coding information further includes a third syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted based on a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode, the method further comprises determining a plurality of cost values associated with a template region adjacent to the CU and respectively corresponding to each of a plurality of reference regions comprising at least one reference line portion, and
8
each of the plurality of cost values is determined according to a difference between (i) respective prediction samples of the template region determined based on samples in a respective one of the plurality of reference regions and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region corresponding to the respective prediction samples.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that the instant application claim 12 is a video encoding method claim whereas patent claims 1 and 2 are a video decoding method claim. However, all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent claim limitations. The instant application claim 12 is a broader version of the patent claim 1 and 2 since the patent claims have additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 12 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1 and 2 just because the former is a video encoding method and the latter is a video decoding method.
Claim 13 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent 12,375,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 13 between the instant application and the patent.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,375,645 B2 (Patent)
Claim 13
Claim 1
1
The method of claim 12, wherein:
A method of video decoding, the method comprising:
2
the syntax element is a third syntax element, the bitstream includes a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode associated with a set of candidate intra prediction modes, when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is intra predicted based on the TIVMD mode, the third syntax element is encoded in the bitstream, and
receiving coding information of a coding unit (CU) from a coded video bitstream, the coding information including a first syntax element indicating whether the CU is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode associated with a set of candidate intra prediction modes;
3
when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is not intra predicted based on the TIMD mode, a second syntax element is encoded in the bitstream, the second syntax element indicating whether the CU is coded by one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM).
decoding a second syntax element associated with another intra coding mode when the first syntax element indicates that the CU is not intra predicted based on the TIMD mode, the second syntax element indicating whether the other intra coding mode includes one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM); and
4
reconstructing samples of the CU using one of the TIMD mode, the MIP mode, or the MPM based on at least one of the first syntax element and the second syntax element.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 13 is a broader version of the patent claim 1 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 13 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claim 1.
Claim 21 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 and 12 of Patent 12,375,645 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following table describes the double patenting rejection basis of claim 21 between the instant application and the patent.
19249796 (Instant Application)
12,375,645 B2 (Patent)
Claim 21
Claim 11
1
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform an encoding method comprising:
An apparatus for video encoding, comprising: processing circuitry configured to:
2
determining whether a coding unit (CU) is to be predicted by a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode based on a plurality of reference lines of the CU;
determine a value of a first syntax element indicating whether a coding unit (CU) is intra predicted based on template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) mode associated with a set of candidate intra prediction modes; and
3
determine a value of a second syntax element associated with another intra coding mode when the CU is not intra predicted based on the TIMD mode, the second syntax element indicating whether the other intra coding mode includes one of matrix-based intra prediction (MIP) and most probable mode (MPM); and
4
when the CU is determined to be coded by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode, determining a plurality of first cost values associated with a plurality of candidate reference regions of a template region adjacent to the CU, each of the plurality of candidate reference regions including at least one of the plurality of reference lines, each of the plurality of first cost values being calculated as a difference between prediction samples of the template region obtained based on a respective one of the plurality of candidate reference regions and reconstructed samples of the template region;
generate a coded video bitstream by encoding samples of the CU using one of the TIMD mode, the MIP mode, or the MPM, and encoding at least one of the first syntax element and the second syntax element.
5
selecting a reference region from the plurality of candidate reference regions based on the plurality of first cost values;
6
encoding samples of the CU into a bitstream based on the selected reference region; encoding a syntax element in the bitstream, the syntax element indicated whether the CU is predicted by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode; and transmitting the encoded bitstream.
Claim 12
7
The apparatus of claim 11, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
8
determine a value of a third syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted based on a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode,
9
determine a plurality of cost values associated with a template region adjacent to the CU and respectively corresponding to each of a plurality of reference regions comprising at least one reference line portion,
10
wherein each of the plurality of cost values is determined according to a difference between (i) the respective prediction samples of the template region that is determined based on the samples in the respective one of the plurality of reference regions and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region corresponding to the respective prediction samples.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The equivalencies in claim limitations of the instant application and the patent are highlighted in bold italics text. It is to be noted that the instant application claim 21 is a video encoding CRM claim whereas patent claim 11 and 12 are a video decoding apparatus claim. However, all the limitations of the instant application are directly or indirectly recited in the patent. The instant application claim 21 is a broader version of the patent claims 11 and 12 since the patent claim has additional limitations therein. Therefore, the instant application claim 21 as a whole is not patentably distinct from the patent claims 11 and 12 just because the former is a video encoding CRM claim and the latter is a video decoding apparatus claim.
Claims 4-11, 14-20 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-10, 3-10 of Patent 12,375,645 B2 respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
This is a nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have in fact been patented.
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 2, 4-9, 11-12, 14-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US PGPub 2022/0224915 A1) in view of Li et al. ("Intra Prediction Using Multiple Reference Lines For Video Coding") (See attached pdf document).
Regarding claim 2 (New), Wang et al. teach a method of video decoding (Fig. 3), the method comprising:
receiving coding information of a coding unit (CU) from a coded video bitstream ([0062]; [0104]; It teaches that intra-prediction modes (IPM) at the encoding/decoding side are used to encode/decode each image or frame of a video, where the IPMs are determined or specified per block of an image, where a block can include a portion of the image defined by a subset of coding units CUs);
decoding, from the coding information, a syntax element indicating that the CU is predicted by a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode based on a plurality of reference lines for the CU (Fig. 20; [0158]; It teaches a template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) method is used for the target NxN CU for which intra-prediction mode is to be estimated, wherein in [0224], it states that a syntax is signaled in the bitstream to indicate template reference samples to use may be inherited from the index of reference lines used in MRL as depicted in Fig. 16);
determining a plurality of first cost values associated with a plurality of candidate reference regions of a template region adjacent to the CU, each of the plurality of candidate reference regions including at least one of the plurality of reference lines ([0210]-[0211], [0220]; It teaches calculating cost values for different template samples. It also teaches that IPM deriving unit 4130 may determine one or more lines of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template based on the selected template, which means the cost value is determined for plurality of reference regions), each of the plurality of first cost values being calculated as a difference between (i) prediction samples of the template region obtained based on a respective one of the plurality of candidate reference regions ([0210]-[0211], [0220]; It teaches that the IPM deriving unit 4130 may determine one or more lines of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template based on the selected template) and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region ([0210]-[0211], [0220], [0277]; It teaches that the cost calculation is further based on a calculation rule between partial or all reconstructed samples of the at least one template set and corresponding prediction samples);
selecting a reference region from the plurality of candidate reference regions based on the plurality of first cost values ([0317], [0210]-[0211], [0220]; It teaches determining the cost for each of the IPMs to predict samples in the template regions, which comprises determining one or more lines of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template region. It is to be noted that in [0220], it clearly states “In an aspect, where different templates are selected for different IPMs, the cost may be normalized by dividing the total number of samples in the used templates for each IPM. The IPM deriving unit 4130, 4230 may select the candidate IPM that has the best cost. The best cost may be the lowest cost when the cost metric is a SATD, SSE, or SAD”, which means the selection of reference regions is directly related to the selection of IPMs for that selected reference region); and
reconstructing samples of the CU based on the selected reference region (Fig. 20; [0211]-[0212]; It teaches that the calculated final IPM based on cost value analysis is used to reconstruct the blocks in the CU).
Although, Wang et al. teach cost value determination for IPM associated with different reference regions, but it does not explicitly teach that the cost is calculated to select the best reference line for intra-prediction of the current block.
However, Li et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach MRL based intra prediction scheme, where it teaches calculation of cost to select the best reference line for intra-prediction of the current block (Li et al.; Page 227, Section (3) – Rate distortion cost-based decision).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Wang et al’s invention of template matching based decoder-side intra prediction mode derivation to include Li et al's usage of cost based decision making to select best reference line for intra prediction, because multiple line-based intra prediction (MLIP) suits for the situation where high compression ratio is pursued (Li et al.; Page 222, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 4 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 2, wherein the template region further comprises:
one or a combination of (i) top samples in a row above a top side of the CU and (ii) side samples in a column adjacent to a left side of the CU (Wang et al.; Fig. 20 shows the top samples in a row above a top side of the CU as well as side samples in a column adjacent to a left side of the CU).
Regarding claim 5 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 4, wherein the template region further comprises:
the top samples and the side samples (Wang et al.; Figs. 20, 22 show the top and side samples); and
an interface sample positioned above the side samples and adjacent to the top samples (Wang et al.; Figs. 24, 31, reference numeral 2420, Template LA).
Regarding claim 6 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 5, wherein the plurality of candidate reference regions comprises:
a first reference region including a row portion positioned above a top side of the template region and a column portion adjacent to a left side of the template region (Wang et al.; [0224]; It teaches that one or more lines (e.g., rows or columns) of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template may be used, which means the MRL scheme of intra-prediction as shown in Fig. 16 is applicable to the template based intra prediction derivation method of Fig. 20. In Fig. 20 it shows the first reference region including a row portion positioned above a top side of the template region and a column portion adjacent to a left side of the template region);
a second reference region including a row portion above the row portion of the first reference region and a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the first reference region (Wang et al.; Fig. 16 shows a second reference region reference line 2 including a row portion above the row portion of the first reference region reference line 1 assuming the position of the reference line 0 is the position for template region. It also shows a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the first reference region in segment D); and
a third reference region including a row portion above the row portion of the second reference region and a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the second reference region (Wang et al.; Fig. 16 shows a third reference region reference line 3 including a row portion above the row portion of the second reference region reference line 2 assuming the position of the reference line 0 is the position for template region. It also shows a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the second reference region in segment D).
Regarding claim 7 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 2, wherein the template region further comprises:
one or a combination of (i) top samples in a first row above a top side of the CU and top samples in a second row above the first row, and (ii) side samples in a first column adjacent to a left side of the CU and side samples in a second column along the first column (Wang et al.; Fig. 30; [0197]; It teaches side samples in a first column (2440) adjacent to a left side of the CU (2410) and side samples in a second column (2450) along the first column (2440)).
Regarding claim 8 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 7, wherein the template region further comprises:
the top samples in the first row and the second row (Wang et al.; Fig. 16 shows the top samples in the first and second row);
the side samples in the first column and the second column (Wang et al.; Fig. 16 also shows the side samples in the first and second column); and
interface samples positioned over the side samples of the first and second columns and left of the top samples of the first and second rows (Wang et al.; Fig. 31 shows interface samples in the template block 2420. Fig. 16 also shows the interface samples as shaded areas in Segment C).
Regarding claim 9 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of candidate reference regions comprises:
a first reference region including a row portion positioned above a top side of the template region and a column portion adjacent to a left side of the template region (Wang et al.; [0224]; It teaches that one or more lines (e.g., rows or columns) of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template may be used, which means the MRL scheme of intra-prediction as shown in Fig. 16 is applicable to the template based intra prediction derivation method of Fig. 20. In Fig. 20 it shows the first reference region including a row portion positioned above a top side of the template region and a column portion adjacent to a left side of the template region); and
a second reference region including a row portion above the row portion of the first reference region and a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the first reference region (Wang et al.; Fig. 16 shows a second reference region reference line 2 including a row portion above the row portion of the first reference region reference line 1 assuming the position of the reference line 0 is the position for template region. It also shows a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the first reference region in segment D).
Regarding claim 11 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 2, wherein the coding information includes a first syntax element when a fourth syntax element indicates that decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) is not used on the CU (Wang et al.; [0159]-[0160]; it teaches that for each intra-prediction mode, the DIMD calculates the absolute difference (SAD) between the reconstructed template samples and its prediction samples obtained from the reference samples of the template, wherein one flag is signaled for each intra CU to indicate the usage of the DIMD).
Regarding claim 12 (New), Wang et al. teach a method of video encoding (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
determining whether a coding unite (CU) is to be predicted by a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode based on a plurality of reference lines of the CU (Fig. 20; [0158]; It teaches a template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) method is used for the target NxN CU for which intra-prediction mode is to be estimated, wherein in [0224], it states that a syntax is signaled in the bitstream to indicate template reference samples to use may be inherited from the index of reference lines used in MRL as depicted in Fig. 16);
when the CU is determined to be coded by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode (Fig. 20; [0158]; It teaches a template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) method is used for the target NxN CU for which intra-prediction mode is to be estimated, wherein in [0224], it states that a syntax is signaled in the bitstream to indicate template reference samples to use may be inherited from the index of reference lines used in MRL as depicted in Fig. 16), determining a plurality of first cost values associated with a plurality of candidate reference regions of a template region adjacent to the CU ([0210]-[0211], [0220]; It teaches calculating cost values for different template samples. It also teaches that IPM deriving unit 4130 may determine one or more lines of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template based on the selected template, which means the cost value is determined for plurality of reference regions), each of the plurality of candidate reference regions including at least one of the plurality of reference lines, each of the plurality of first cost values being calculated as a difference between (i) prediction samples of the template region obtained based on a respective one of the plurality of candidate reference regions ([0210]-[0211], [0220]; It teaches that the IPM deriving unit 4130 may determine one or more lines of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template based on the selected template) and (ii) reconstructed samples of the template region ([0210]-[0211], [0220], [0277]; It teaches that the cost calculation is further based on a calculation rule between partial or all reconstructed samples of the at least one template set and corresponding prediction samples);
selecting a reference region from the plurality of candidate reference regions based on the plurality of first cost values ([0317], [0210]-[0211], [0220]; It teaches determining the cost for each of the IPMs to predict samples in the template regions, which comprises determining one or more lines of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template region. It is to be noted that in [0220], it clearly states “In an aspect, where different templates are selected for different IPMs, the cost may be normalized by dividing the total number of samples in the used templates for each IPM. The IPM deriving unit 4130, 4230 may select the candidate IPM that has the best cost. The best cost may be the lowest cost when the cost metric is a SATD, SSE, or SAD”, which means the selection of reference regions is directly related to the selection of IPMs for that selected reference region);
encoding samples of the CU into a bitstream based on the selected reference region ([0015]; It teaches that the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream. See also Fig. 42, [0213]); and
encoding a syntax element in the bitstream, the syntax element indicated whether the CU is predicted by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode (Fig. 20; [0158]; It teaches a template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) method is used for the target NxN CU for which intra-prediction mode is to be estimated, wherein in [0224], it states that a syntax is signaled in the bitstream to indicate template reference samples to use may be inherited from the index of reference lines used in MRL as depicted in Fig. 16).
Although, Wang et al. teach cost value determination for IPM associated with different reference regions, but it does not explicitly teach that the cost is calculated to select the best reference line for intra-prediction of the current block.
However, Li et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach MRL based intra prediction scheme, where it teaches calculation of cost to select the best reference line for intra-prediction of the current block (Li et al.; Page 227, Section (3) – Rate distortion cost-based decision).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Wang et al’s invention of template matching based decoder-side intra prediction mode derivation to include Li et al's usage of cost based decision making to select best reference line for intra prediction, because multiple line-based intra prediction (MLIP) suits for the situation where high compression ratio is pursued (Li et al.; Page 222, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 14 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 12, wherein the template region further comprises:
one or a combination of (i) top samples in a row above a top side of the CU and (ii) side samples in a column adjacent to a left side of the CU (Wang et al.; Fig. 20 shows the top samples in a row above a top side of the CU as well as side samples in a column adjacent to a left side of the CU).
Regarding claim 15 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 14, wherein the template region further comprises:
the top samples and the side samples (Wang et al.; Figs. 20, 22 show the top and side samples); and
an interface sample positioned above the side samples and adjacent to the top samples (Wang et al.; Figs. 24, 31, reference numeral 2420, Template LA).
Regarding claim 16 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 15, wherein the plurality of candidate reference regions comprises:
a first reference region including a row portion positioned above a top side of the template region and a column portion adjacent to a left side of the template region (Wang et al.; [0224]; It teaches that one or more lines (e.g., rows or columns) of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template may be used, which means the MRL scheme of intra-prediction as shown in Fig. 16 is applicable to the template based intra prediction derivation method of Fig. 20. In Fig. 20 it shows the first reference region including a row portion positioned above a top side of the template region and a column portion adjacent to a left side of the template region);
a second reference region including a row portion above the row portion of the first reference region and a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the first reference region (Wang et al.; Fig. 16 shows a second reference region reference line 2 including a row portion above the row portion of the first reference region reference line 1 assuming the position of the reference line 0 is the position for template region. It also shows a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the first reference region in segment D); and
a third reference region including a row portion above the row portion of the second reference region and a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the second reference region (Wang et al.; Fig. 16 shows a third reference region reference line 3 including a row portion above the row portion of the second reference region reference line 2 assuming the position of the reference line 0 is the position for template region. It also shows a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the second reference region in segment D).
Regarding claim 17 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 12, wherein the template region further comprises:
one or a combination of (i) top samples in a first row above a top side of the CU and top samples in a second row above the first row, and (ii) side samples in a first column adjacent to a left side of the CU and side samples in a second column along the first column (Wang et al.; Fig. 30; [0197]; It teaches side samples in a first column (2440) adjacent to a left side of the CU (2410) and side samples in a second column (2450) along the first column (2440)).
Regarding claim 18 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 17, wherein the template region further comprises:
the top samples in the first row and the second row (Wang et al.; Fig. 16 shows the top samples in the first and second row);
the side samples in the first column and the second column (Wang et al.; Fig. 16 also shows the side samples in the first and second column); and
interface samples positioned over the side samples of the first and second columns and left of the top samples of the first and second rows (Wang et al.; Fig. 31 shows interface samples in the template block 2420. Fig. 16 also shows the interface samples as shaded areas in Segment C).
Regarding claim 19 (New), Wang et al. and Li et al. teach the method of claim 18, wherein the plurality of candidate reference regions comprises:
a first reference region including a row portion positioned above a top side of the template region and a column portion adjacent to a left side of the template region (Wang et al.; [0224]; It teaches that one or more lines (e.g., rows or columns) of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template may be used, which means the MRL scheme of intra-prediction as shown in Fig. 16 is applicable to the template based intra prediction derivation method of Fig. 20. In Fig. 20 it shows the first reference region including a row portion positioned above a top side of the template region and a column portion adjacent to a left side of the template region); and
a second reference region including a row portion above the row portion of the first reference region and a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the first reference region (Wang et al.; Fig. 16 shows a second reference region reference line 2 including a row portion above the row portion of the first reference region reference line 1 assuming the position of the reference line 0 is the position for template region. It also shows a column portion adjacent to the column portion of the first reference region in segment D).
Regarding claim 21 (New), Wang et al. teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform an encoding method ([0018]) comprising:
determining whether a coding unit (CU) is to be predicted by a template matching based multiple reference line (MRL) intra prediction mode based on a plurality of reference lines of the CU (Fig. 20; [0158]; It teaches a template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) method is used for the target NxN CU for which intra-prediction mode is to be estimated, wherein in [0224], it states that a syntax is signaled in the bitstream to indicate template reference samples to use may be inherited from the index of reference lines used in MRL as depicted in Fig. 16);
when the CU is determined to be coded by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode (Fig. 20; [0158]; It teaches a template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) method is used for the target NxN CU for which intra-prediction mode is to be estimated, wherein in [0224], it states that a syntax is signaled in the bitstream to indicate template reference samples to use may be inherited from the index of reference lines used in MRL as depicted in Fig. 16), determining a plurality of first cost values associated with a plurality of candidate reference regions of a template region adjacent to the CU ([0210]-[0211], [0220]; It teaches calculating cost values for different template samples. It also teaches that IPM deriving unit 4130 may determine one or more lines of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template based on the selected template, which means the cost value is determined for plurality of reference regions), each of the plurality of candidate reference regions including at least one of the plurality of reference lines, each of the plurality of first cost values being calculated as a difference between prediction samples of the template region obtained based on a respective one of the plurality of candidate reference regions ([0210]-[0211], [0220]; It teaches that the IPM deriving unit 4130 may determine one or more lines of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template based on the selected template) and reconstructed samples of the template region ([0210]-[0211], [0220], [0277]; It teaches that the cost calculation is further based on a calculation rule between partial or all reconstructed samples of the at least one template set and corresponding prediction samples);
selecting a reference region from the plurality of candidate reference regions based on the plurality of first cost values ([0317], [0210]-[0211], [0220]; It teaches determining the cost for each of the IPMs to predict samples in the template regions, which comprises determining one or more lines of template-reference samples neighboring the selected template region. It is to be noted that in [0220], it clearly states “In an aspect, where different templates are selected for different IPMs, the cost may be normalized by dividing the total number of samples in the used templates for each IPM. The IPM deriving unit 4130, 4230 may select the candidate IPM that has the best cost. The best cost may be the lowest cost when the cost metric is a SATD, SSE, or SAD”, which means the selection of reference regions is directly related to the selection of IPMs for that selected reference region);
encoding samples of the CU into a bitstream based on the selected reference region ([0015]; It teaches that the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream. See also Fig. 42, [0213]);
encoding a syntax element in the bitstream, the syntax element indicated whether the CU is predicted by the template matching based MRL intra prediction mode (Fig. 20; [0158]; It teaches a template based intra mode derivation (TIMD) method is used for the target NxN CU for which intra-prediction mode is to be estimated, wherein in [0224], it states that a syntax is signaled in the bitstream to indicate template reference samples to use may be inherited from the index of reference lines used in MRL as depicted in Fig. 16); and
transmitting the encoded bitstream ([0065]; it teaches that the encoded video data may be transmitted directly to destination device 120 via the I/O interface 116 through the network 130a).
Although, Wang et al. teach cost value determination for IPM associated with different reference regions, but it does not explicitly teach that the cost is calculated to select the best reference line for intra-prediction of the current block.
However, Li et al., in the same field of endeavor (Abstract), teach MRL based intra prediction scheme, where it teaches calculation of cost to select the best reference line for intra-prediction of the current block (Li et al.; Page 227, Section (3) – Rate distortion cost-based decision).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Wang et al’s invention of template matching based decoder-side intra prediction mode derivation to include Li et al's usage of cost based decision making to select best reference line for intra prediction, because multiple line-based intra prediction (MLIP) suits for the situation where high compression ratio is pursued (Li et al.; Page 222, Paragraph 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 10, 13 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. "INTRA-MODE DEPENDENT MULTIPLE TRANSFORM SELECTION FOR VIDEO CODING" - Ray et al., US PGPub 2022/0329800 A1.
2. "METHODS AND APPARATUSES FOR CROSS-COMPONENT PREDICTION" - Deng et al., US PGPub 2022/0239897 A1.
3. "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INTRA-PREDICTION IN IMAGE CODING SYSTEM" - Jang et al., US PGPub 2021/0297677 A1.
4. "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ENCODING/DECODING AN IMAGE" - Moon et al., US PGPub 2021/0281853 A1.
5. "TEMPLATE MATCHING FOR JVET INTRA PREDICTION" - Panusopone et al., US PGPub 2021/0203925 A1.
6. "INTRA-PICTURE PREDICTION USING NON-ADJACENT REFERENCE LINES OF SAMPLE VALUES" - Li et al., US PGPub 2020/0359016 A1.
7. "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TEMPLATE-BASED INTRA PREDICTION IN IMAGE AND VIDEO CODING" - Liu et al., US PGPub 2017/0353730 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAINUL HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0422. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI: 10AM-6PM, Alternate FRIDAYS, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAY PATEL can be reached on (571)272-2988. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mainul Hasan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights