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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein the fusion condition comprises a second threshold". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a first threshold has not been claimed. Therefore, claim 9 lacks proper antecedent basis and is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant is required to amend the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for “a second threshold”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation in part “third values corresponding to the respective reference blocks; performing summation on the third values corresponding to the respective reference blocks to obtain a fourth value; and determining the weight values of the respective reference blocks based on the fourth value and the template error values of the respective reference blocks.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a first value(s) and a second value(s) has not been claimed and therefore a third value(s) and a fourth value(s) cannot be claimed. Therefore, claim 14 lacks proper antecedent basis and is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 15-17 depend on claim 14 and are therefore rejected herein. Applicant is required to amend the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for “third values and a fourth value”.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “to obtain a fifth value” and “multiplying the fourth value by n-1 to obtain a sixth value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a first value(s) and a second value(s) has not been claimed and therefore a fifth value(s) and a sixth value(s) cannot be claimed. Therefore, claim 16 lacks proper antecedent basis and is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 17 depends on claim 16 and claim 14 and are therefore rejected herein. Applicant is required to amend the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for “a fifth value(s) and a sixth value(s)”. Furthermore, claim 16 recites “a third value corresponding to the i-th reference block”. Claim 14 already recites “third values”. Does the “a third value” in claim 16 correspond to the “third values” recited in claim 14 or is this a new third value. Please clarify and provide proper antecedent basis for “a third value”.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “to obtain an eighth value” and “adding Coffset to the eight value to obtain a ninth value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, a first value(s), a second value(s), a third value(s), a fourth value(s), a fifth value(s), a sixth value(s), a seventh value have not been claimed (i.e. claim 18 does not depend on claims 14 or 16, which define the third value(s), fourth value(s), fifth value(s) and sixth value(s), and therefore an eighth value(s) and a ninth value(s) cannot be claimed. Therefore, claim 16 lacks proper antecedent basis and is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant is required to amend the claims to provide clear antecedent basis for “an eighth value(s) and a ninth value(s)”.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 20 is applying product-by-process type claim language, where the bitstream is being described as a product that is the result of the coding process. The process steps are not required elements of the CRM because they only describe the scope of the product, which in this claim is the bitstream. The contents of the bitstream, defined by how the bitstream was generated, only describes the content of the information in the bitstream and as result are descriptive language. See MPEP $2111.05. The bitstream has no functional relationship with the claimed non-transitory storage medium. The claim scope (in light of the specification) describes the relationship of the contents of the bitstream in terms of how video content can be encoded into a bitstream, however there is no functional relationship between the contents of the information in the bitstream and the storage of that bitstream of the medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 20110099594).
A non-transitory storage medium, storing a bitstream generated by: is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP $2113 recites "Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps". Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
"To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated". MPEP $2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed "storage medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP $2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in claim 20 merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between
the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP $2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Chen which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (Paragraph 0015, 0031).
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lim) (US 20260135991).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a decoding method, comprising:
determining at least one reference block of the current block based on an intra template matching prediction (IntraTMP) mode; [See Lim [1665] IntraTMP prediction.]
determining a target prediction block of the current block based on the at least one reference block; and [See Lim [1665] IntraTMP prediction.]
determining a reconstructed block of the current block based on a residual block of the current block and the target prediction block. [See Lim [1665] IntraTMP prediction.]
Regarding claim 2, Lim discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the determining the at least one reference block of the current block based on the IntraTMP mode comprises: determining a first flag based on a bitstream; and determining the at least one reference block based on the IntraTMP mode if the first flag indicates using the IntraTMP mode for fusion prediction. [See Lim [Fig. 68] intra_tmp_fusion_flag.]
Regarding claim 3, Lim discloses the method of claim 2. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the determining the first flag based on the bitstream comprises: determining a second flag based on the bitstream; and determining the first flag based on the bitstream if the second flag indicates using the IntraTMP mode for prediction. [See Lim [Fig. 68] intra_tmp_flag.]
Regarding claim 4, Lim discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the determining the at least one reference block of the current block based on the IntraTMP mode comprises: performing template matching on the current block based on the IntraTMP mode to obtain X candidate reference blocks; and determining the at least one reference block based on the X candidate reference blocks. [See Lim [1719-1721] Candidate reference blocks. The number of final candidates is equal to or greater than 1 and less than or equal to 3.]
Regarding claim 5, Lim discloses the method of claim 4. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the determining the at least one reference block based on the X candidate reference blocks comprises: determining N available reference blocks based on the X candidate reference blocks, wherein X>N; and determining the at least one reference block based on the N available reference blocks. [See Lim [1719-1721] Candidate reference blocks. The number of final candidates is equal to or greater than 1 and less than or equal to 3.]
Regarding claim 6, Lim discloses the method of claim 5. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the determining the N available reference blocks based on the X candidate reference blocks comprises: refining the X candidate reference blocks to determine the N available reference blocks. [See Lim [1719-1721] Candidate reference blocks. The number of final candidates is equal to or greater than 1 and less than or equal to 3. Actual detected valid candidates.]
Regarding claim 7, Lim discloses the method of claim 6. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the refining the X candidate reference blocks to determine the N available reference blocks comprises: determining a refining range of a current candidate reference block in the X candidate reference blocks; performing intra template matching in the refining range based on at least one matching step to determine reference blocks in the refining range; determine the N available reference blocks based on the reference blocks in the refining range. [See Lim [1665-1667] Refinement search is performed. Also, see 1680, refinement search.]
Regarding claim 8, Lim discloses the method of claim 5. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the determining the at least one reference block based on the N available reference blocks comprises: determining a fusion condition for the N available reference blocks; and determining, from the N available reference blocks, an available reference block that meets the fusion condition as the at least one reference block. [See Lim [1682] Selection of candidate matched blocks for fusion using threshold.]
Regarding claim 9, Lim discloses the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the determining the fusion condition for the N available reference blocks comprises: determining the fusion condition based on at least one of: a size of a template of the current block, a bit width of a sample of the current block, and a minimum template error value of the N available reference blocks. [See Lim [1682] Selection of candidate matched blocks for fusion using minimum template SAD.]
Regarding claim 11, Lim discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the determining the target prediction block based on the at least one reference block comprises: performing, if the at least one reference block comprises a plurality of reference blocks, weighting processing on the plurality of reference blocks to determine the target prediction block of the current block. [See Lim [1684] Calculating fusion weights. Also, see 1720, candidate reference blocks fused depending on weights.]
Regarding claim 12, Lim discloses the method of claim 11. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the performing weighting processing on the plurality of reference blocks to determine the target prediction block comprises: determining weight values of respective reference blocks of the plurality of reference blocks; and performing weighting processing on the plurality of reference blocks based on the weight values of the respective reference blocks to determine the target prediction block. [See Lim [1684] Calculating fusion weights. Also, see 1720, candidate reference blocks fused depending on weights.]
Regarding claim 13, Lim discloses the method of claim 12. Furthermore, Lim discloses
wherein the determining the weight values of the respective reference blocks of the plurality of reference blocks comprises: determining the weight values of the respective reference blocks based on template error values of the respective reference blocks, a quantity of the plurality of reference blocks, and a sum of the weight values of the plurality of reference blocks. [See Lim [1684] Equations 98-99, where template error values for reference blocks are SADs, n is total number of reference blocks and Wi is weight value corresponding reference block for which template error is SADi.]
Regarding claim 19, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 20.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 20260135991) in view of Park et al. (herein after will be referred to as Park) (US 20260122227).
Regarding claim 18, Lim discloses the method of claim 12. Furthermore, Lim does not explicitly disclose
wherein the performing weighting processing on the plurality of reference blocks based on the weight values of the respective reference blocks to obtain the target prediction block comprises: performing summation on the reference blocks multiplied by the weight values of the respective reference blocks, to obtain an eighth value; adding C.sub.offset to the eighth value to obtain a ninth value; and right shifting the ninth value by C.sub.Shift to obtain the target prediction block, wherein C.sub.offset is a value determined according to C.sub.Shift, and C.sub.Shift is a value determined according to a sum of the weight values of the plurality of reference blocks.
However, Park does disclose
wherein the performing weighting processing on the plurality of reference blocks based on the weight values of the respective reference blocks to obtain the target prediction block comprises: performing summation on the reference blocks multiplied by the weight values of the respective reference blocks, to obtain an eighth value; adding C.sub.offset to the eighth value to obtain a ninth value; and right shifting the ninth value by C.sub.Shift to obtain the target prediction block, wherein C.sub.offset is a value determined according to C.sub.Shift, and C.sub.Shift is a value determined according to a sum of the weight values of the plurality of reference blocks. [See Park [0106] Weighted sum for reference blocks, where offset and shift are set based on the sum of weights.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Lim to add the teachings of Park, in order to incorporate analogous teachings of weighted prediction and an offset/shift operation to improve upon video processing calculations.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arumugam et al. (herein after will be referred to as Arumugam) (US 20260019599).
Regarding claim 1, Arumugam discloses a decoding method, comprising:
determining at least one reference block of the current block based on an intra template matching prediction (IntraTMP) mode; [See Arumugam [Fig. 3 and 0029] Intra TMP prediction.]
determining a target prediction block of the current block based on the at least one reference block; and [See Arumugam [Fig. 3 and 0029] Intra TMP prediction.]
determining a reconstructed block of the current block based on a residual block of the current block and the target prediction block. [See Arumugam [Fig. 3 and 0029] Intra TMP prediction.]
Regarding claim 2, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Arumugam discloses
wherein the determining the at least one reference block of the current block based on the IntraTMP mode comprises: determining a first flag based on a bitstream; and determining the at least one reference block based on the IntraTMP mode if the first flag indicates using the IntraTMP mode for fusion prediction. [See Arumugam [0102] Intra TMP fusion flag.]
Regarding claim 3, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 2. Furthermore, Arumugam discloses
wherein the determining the first flag based on the bitstream comprises: determining a second flag based on the bitstream; and determining the first flag based on the bitstream if the second flag indicates using the IntraTMP mode for prediction. [See Arumugam [Table 1] Intra TMP flag.]
Regarding claim 4, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Arumugam discloses
wherein the determining the at least one reference block of the current block based on the IntraTMP mode comprises: performing template matching on the current block based on the IntraTMP mode to obtain X candidate reference blocks; and determining the at least one reference block based on the X candidate reference blocks. [See Arumugam [0102] Derived from the best matched candidate block.]
Regarding claim 5, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 4. Furthermore, Arumugam discloses
wherein the determining the at least one reference block based on the X candidate reference blocks comprises: determining N available reference blocks based on the X candidate reference blocks, wherein X>N; and determining the at least one reference block based on the N available reference blocks. [See Arumugam [0102] Derived from the best matched candidate block.]
Regarding claim 6, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 5. Furthermore, Arumugam discloses
wherein the determining the N available reference blocks based on the X candidate reference blocks comprises: refining the X candidate reference blocks to determine the N available reference blocks. [See Arumugam [0036] Refinement search process.]
Regarding claim 7, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 6. Furthermore, Arumugam discloses
wherein the refining the X candidate reference blocks to determine the N available reference blocks comprises: determining a refining range of a current candidate reference block in the X candidate reference blocks; performing intra template matching in the refining range based on at least one matching step to determine reference blocks in the refining range; determine the N available reference blocks based on the reference blocks in the refining range. [See Arumugam [0036] Refinement search process utilizing a reduced search range.]
Regarding claim 8, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 5. Furthermore, Arumugam discloses
wherein the determining the at least one reference block based on the N available reference blocks comprises: determining a fusion condition for the N available reference blocks; and determining, from the N available reference blocks, an available reference block that meets the fusion condition as the at least one reference block. [See Arumugam [0066] Fusion condition based on threshold.]
Regarding claim 9, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Arumugam discloses
wherein the determining the fusion condition for the N available reference blocks comprises: determining the fusion condition based on at least one of: a size of a template of the current block, a bit width of a sample of the current block, and a minimum template error value of the N available reference blocks. [See Arumugam [0066] Fusion condition based on threshold with cost.]
Regarding claim 11, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Arumugam discloses
wherein the determining the target prediction block based on the at least one reference block comprises: performing, if the at least one reference block comprises a plurality of reference blocks, weighting processing on the plurality of reference blocks to determine the target prediction block of the current block. [See Arumugam [0071-0074, 0103] Final fusion and/or Fusion function.]
Regarding claim 12, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 11. Furthermore, Arumugam discloses
wherein the performing weighting processing on the plurality of reference blocks to determine the target prediction block comprises: determining weight values of respective reference blocks of the plurality of reference blocks; and performing weighting processing on the plurality of reference blocks based on the weight values of the respective reference blocks to determine the target prediction block. [See Arumugam [0071-0074, 0103] Final fusion and/or Fusion function.]
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arumugam (US 20260019599) in view of Park et al. (herein after will be referred to as Park) (US 20260122227).
Regarding claim 18, Arumugam discloses the method of claim 12. Furthermore, Arumugam does not explicitly disclose
wherein the performing weighting processing on the plurality of reference blocks based on the weight values of the respective reference blocks to obtain the target prediction block comprises: performing summation on the reference blocks multiplied by the weight values of the respective reference blocks, to obtain an eighth value; adding C.sub.offset to the eighth value to obtain a ninth value; and right shifting the ninth value by C.sub.Shift to obtain the target prediction block, wherein C.sub.offset is a value determined according to C.sub.Shift, and C.sub.Shift is a value determined according to a sum of the weight values of the plurality of reference blocks.
However, Park does disclose
wherein the performing weighting processing on the plurality of reference blocks based on the weight values of the respective reference blocks to obtain the target prediction block comprises: performing summation on the reference blocks multiplied by the weight values of the respective reference blocks, to obtain an eighth value; adding C.sub.offset to the eighth value to obtain a ninth value; and right shifting the ninth value by C.sub.Shift to obtain the target prediction block, wherein C.sub.offset is a value determined according to C.sub.Shift, and C.sub.Shift is a value determined according to a sum of the weight values of the plurality of reference blocks. [See Park [0106] Weighted sum for reference blocks, where offset and shift are set based on the sum of weights.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Arumugam to add the teachings of Park, in order to incorporate analogous teachings of weighted prediction and an offset/shift operation to improve upon video processing calculations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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.
US 20240223776
US 20250150598
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights