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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims in light of the specification encompasses transitory signals. But transitory signals are not within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. non-statutory subject matter). However, claims directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium may qualify as a manufacture and make the claim patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, amending the claims to recite a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” would resolve this issue.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11, 14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Keming Cao et al. [US 20220394269 A1].
Regarding claim 1, Keming teaches:
1. A decoding method (i.e. A method of encoding or decoding video data- Abstract… In general, this disclosure describes techniques that may improve coding efficiency and performance of intra prediction in a video coding specification, such as in an enhanced compression model (ECM) beyond Versatile Video Coding (VVC). The techniques of this disclosure may be applied in ECM or another video codec. As described herein, a video encoder (e.g., a video encoder or a video decoder) may encode or decode video data using a modified form of template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD). In this modified form of TIMD, the video coder may generate a prediction block based on a fusion of preliminary prediction blocks for a first intra prediction mode and a second intra prediction mode- ¶0005), comprising:
determining a residual block of a current block in a current sequence based on a bitstream (i.e. After inverse quantization unit 306 forms the transform coefficient block, inverse transform processing unit 308 may apply one or more inverse transforms to the transform coefficient block to generate a residual block associated with the current block. For example, inverse transform processing unit 308 may apply an inverse DCT, an inverse integer transform, an inverse Karhunen-Loeve transform (KLT), an inverse rotational transform, an inverse directional transform, or another inverse transform to the transform coefficient block- ¶0172, fig. 6);
determining a first prediction block of the current block based on an intra template matching prediction IntraTMP (i.e. Another proposed decoder-side intra mode derivation process is template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD)- ¶0076) mode (i.e. the other intra prediction mode is derived using DIMD or TIMD process- ¶0118);
determining a second prediction block of the current block based on a first prediction mode; wherein the first prediction mode is different from the IntraTMP mode (i.e. In one example, one intra prediction mode is signaled using regular intra prediction mode direction signaling (e.g., without using DIMD or TIMD)- ¶0118);
determining a target prediction block of the current block based on the first prediction block and the second prediction block (i.e. Weighting (in other words fusing) of several modes may provide a better variety of predictors. For example, in a DIMD process, planar mode and two derived modes can be fused to form a predictor. In accordance with a technique of this disclosure, the video coder may fuse several modes, but some of intra directions are explicitly signaled and some intra directions are derived. This method is referred to herein as mixed mode. The mixed mode can be indicated by a flag. The flag can be signaled conditionally, for example, if only derived modes (for example, DIMD coding mode) are not used then a flag is signaled to indicate whether the derived and signaled modes are mixed- ¶0117… In a more general way, the derived modes and signaled modes can be merged into one intra prediction method- ¶0123); and
obtaining a reconstruction block of the current block based on the residual block and the target prediction block of the current block (i.e. Reconstruction unit 310 may reconstruct the current block using the prediction block and the residual block- ¶0176, fig 6).
Regarding claim 4, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 1.
wherein the determining the first prediction block based on the optimal matching block comprises: determining the optimal matching block as the first prediction block; or refining the optimal matching block to obtain the first prediction block (i.e. for each respective intra prediction mode of a plurality of intra prediction modes in a most-probable mode (MPM) list: generating, based on reference samples for a template region and using the respective intra prediction mode, prediction samples for the template region, wherein the template region is above or left of a block of the video data; and determining a cost for the respective intra prediction mode based on differences between (1) the prediction samples for the template region and (2) reconstructed samples for the template region; determining a first intra prediction mode and a second intra prediction mode, wherein the first intra prediction mode and the second intra prediction mode are intra prediction modes in the MPM list having lowest costs- ¶0006… Furthermore, when using TIMD, the video encoder may then choose the intra prediction mode with the lowest cost- ¶0022).
Regarding claim 6, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 1.
wherein the determining the weight value of the first prediction block and the weight value of the second prediction block comprises:
determining the weight value of the first prediction block and the weight value of the second prediction block based on at least one of: coding information of an adjacent coding block (i.e. the HoG is computed with reconstructed samples from the above reconstructed neighbor, left reconstructed neighbor and top-left corner neighbor- ¶0071… The video coder may apply weights to the preliminary prediction blocks when fusing the preliminary prediction blocks to generate the prediction block for the current block. In some examples, the video coder determines the weights based on magnitudes in the HoG- ¶0073), a size of the current block, a template size of the current block, a type of the first prediction mode (i.e. determine a weight for the first intra prediction mode and a weight for the second intra prediction mode- ¶0007), and a location of each area in the current block.
Regarding claim 9, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 1.
wherein a template of the current block comprises at least one of a left reconstructed pixel, a lower left reconstructed pixel, an upper left reconstructed pixel, an upper reconstructed pixel, and an upper right reconstructed pixel of the current block (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 1.
wherein the first prediction mode is a prediction mode obtained by template-based intra mode derivation TIMD (i.e. Another proposed decoder-side intra mode derivation process is template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD)- ¶0076) mode (i.e. the other intra prediction mode is derived using DIMD or TIMD process- ¶0118).
Regarding claim 11, Keming teaches:
11. An encoding method (i.e. A method of encoding or decoding video data- Abstract… In general, this disclosure describes techniques that may improve coding efficiency and performance of intra prediction in a video coding specification, such as in an enhanced compression model (ECM) beyond Versatile Video Coding (VVC). The techniques of this disclosure may be applied in ECM or another video codec. As described herein, a video encoder (e.g., a video encoder or a video decoder) may encode or decode video data using a modified form of template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD). In this modified form of TIMD, the video coder may generate a prediction block based on a fusion of preliminary prediction blocks for a first intra prediction mode and a second intra prediction mode- ¶005), comprising:
determining a first prediction block of a current block in a current sequence based on an intra template matching prediction IntraTMP mode;
determining a second prediction block of the current block based on a first prediction mode, wherein the first prediction mode is different from the IntraTMP mode;
determining a target prediction block of the current block based on the first prediction block and the second prediction block;
obtaining a residual block of the current block based on the target prediction block and an original block of the current block (i.e. Mode selection unit 202 provides the prediction block to residual generation unit 204. Residual generation unit 204 receives a raw, unencoded version of the current block from video data memory 230 and the prediction block from mode selection unit 202. Residual generation unit 204 calculates sample-by-sample differences between the current block and the prediction block. The resulting sample-by-sample differences define a residual block for the current block. In some examples, residual generation unit 204 may also determine differences between sample values in the residual block to generate a residual block using residual differential pulse code modulation (RDPCM). In some examples, residual generation unit 204 may be formed using one or more subtractor circuits that perform binary subtraction- ¶0143); and
encoding the residual block of the current block (i.e. Video encoder 200 encodes video data for CUs representing prediction and/or residual information, and other information. The prediction information indicates how the CU is to be predicted in order to form a prediction block for the CU. The residual information generally represents sample-by-sample differences between samples of the CU prior to encoding and the prediction block- ¶0053… In this manner, video encoder 200 may generate a bitstream including encoded video data, e.g., syntax elements describing partitioning of a picture into blocks (e.g., CUs) and prediction and/or residual information for the blocks- ¶0063).
Regarding claim 14, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 11.
wherein the determining the first prediction block based on the optimal matching block comprises: determining the optimal matching block as the first prediction block; or refining the optimal matching block to obtain the first prediction block(i.e. for each respective intra prediction mode of a plurality of intra prediction modes in a most-probable mode (MPM) list: generating, based on reference samples for a template region and using the respective intra prediction mode, prediction samples for the template region, wherein the template region is above or left of a block of the video data; and determining a cost for the respective intra prediction mode based on differences between (1) the prediction samples for the template region and (2) reconstructed samples for the template region; determining a first intra prediction mode and a second intra prediction mode, wherein the first intra prediction mode and the second intra prediction mode are intra prediction modes in the MPM list having lowest costs- ¶0006… Furthermore, when using TIMD, the video encoder may then choose the intra prediction mode with the lowest cost- ¶0022).
Regarding claim 16, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 11.
wherein the determining the weight value of the first prediction block and the weight value of the second prediction block comprises:
determining the weight value of the first prediction block and the weight value of the second prediction block based on at least one of: encoding information of an adjacent coding block (i.e. the HoG is computed with reconstructed samples from the above reconstructed neighbor, left reconstructed neighbor and top-left corner neighbor- ¶0071… The video coder may apply weights to the preliminary prediction blocks when fusing the preliminary prediction blocks to generate the prediction block for the current block. In some examples, the video coder determines the weights based on magnitudes in the HoG- ¶0073), a size of the current block, a template size of the current block, a type of the first prediction mode (i.e. determine a weight for the first intra prediction mode and a weight for the second intra prediction mode- ¶0007), and a location of each area in the current block.
Regarding claim 18, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 11.
wherein the template of the current block comprises 3 at least one of a left reconstructed pixel, a lower left reconstructed pixel, an upper left reconstructed pixel, an upper reconstructed pixel, and an upper right reconstructed pixel of the current block (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 11.
wherein the first prediction mode is a prediction mode obtained by template-based intra mode derivation TIMD (i.e. Another proposed decoder-side intra mode derivation process is template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD)- ¶0076) mode (i.e. the other intra prediction mode is derived using DIMD or TIMD process- ¶0118).
Regarding claim 20, computer-readable medium storing instructions claim 20 corresponds to the same method as claimed in claim 11, and therefore is also rejected for the same rationale as listed above.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keming Cao et al. [US 20220394269 A1] in view of Ling Li et al. [US 20220345691 A1].
Regarding claim 2, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, Keming does not teach explicitly:
wherein the determining a first prediction block of the current block based on the IntraTMP mode comprises: determining a first flag based on the bitstream; and if the first flag indicates that fusion prediction is to be performed by using the IntraTMP mode, determining the first prediction block based on the IntraTMP mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Ling teaches:
wherein the determining a first prediction block of the current block based on the IntraTMP mode comprises: determining a first flag based on the bitstream (i.e. Table 2 shows an exemplary coding process associated with TIMID. As shown in Table 1, a TIMD flag (e.g., TIMD flag) can be signaled when a DIMD flag (e.g., DIMD_flag) is not 1 (or not true)- ¶0116); and if the first flag indicates that fusion prediction is to be performed by using the IntraTMP mode, determining the first prediction block based on the IntraTMP mode (i.e. Therefore, the first intra mode (e.g., intraMode1) can be signaled in the bitstream and defined by parsing MPM and MPM remainder related syntax elements, and a second intra mode (e.g., intraMode2) can be derived in decoder side based on DIMD without being signaled in the bitstream. It should be noted that intraMode1 and intraMode2 cannot be the same- ¶0126).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kemin with the teachings of Ling to improve coding efficiency (Ling- ¶0092).
Regarding claim 3, Keming and Ling teach the limitations of claim 2.
However, Keming does not teach explicitly:
wherein the determining the first flag based on the bitstream comprises: determining a target context index; and determining the first flag by using the target context index based on the bitstream.
In the same field of endeavor, Ling teaches:
wherein the determining the first flag based on the bitstream comprises: determining a target context index; and determining the first flag by using the target context index based on the bitstream (i.e. In some embodiments, for the ISP flag described in Table 3, the CABAC context modeling can depend on the value of the TIMD flag. In an example, the assignment of the context index (e.g., ctxIdx) can only depend on the TIMD flag. For example, when the TIMD flag is equal to 1, ctxIdx can be set equal to 1. Otherwise ctxIdx can be set equal to 0- ¶0121-0122).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kemin with the teachings of Ling to improve coding efficiency (Ling- ¶0092).
Regarding claim 12, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 11.
However, Keming does not teach explicitly:
further comprising: encoding a first flag, wherein the first flag indicates to perform fusion prediction by using the IntraTMP mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Ling teaches:
,further comprising: encoding a first flag, wherein the first flag indicates to perform fusion prediction by using the IntraTMP mode (i.e. Table 2 shows an exemplary coding process associated with TIMID. As shown in Table 1, a TIMD flag (e.g., TIMD flag) can be signaled when a DIMD flag (e.g., DIMD_flag) is not 1 (or not true)- ¶0116…Therefore, the first intra mode (e.g., intraMode1) can be signaled in the bitstream and defined by parsing MPM and MPM remainder related syntax elements, and a second intra mode (e.g., intraMode2) can be derived in decoder side based on DIMD without being signaled in the bitstream. It should be noted that intraMode1 and intraMode2 cannot be the same- ¶0126).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kemin with the teachings of Ling to improve coding efficiency (Ling- ¶0092).
Regarding claim 13, Keming and Ling teach the limitations of claim 12.
However, Keming does not teach explicitly:
wherein the encoding the first flag comprises: determining a target context index; encoding the first flag by using the target context index.
In the same field of endeavor, Ling teaches:
wherein the encoding the first flag comprises: determining a target context index; encoding the first flag by using the target context index (i.e. In some embodiments, for the ISP flag described in Table 3, the CABAC context modeling can depend on the value of the TIMD flag. In an example, the assignment of the context index (e.g., ctxIdx) can only depend on the TIMD flag. For example, when the TIMD flag is equal to 1, ctxIdx can be set equal to 1. Otherwise ctxIdx can be set equal to 0- ¶0121-0122).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kemin with the teachings of Ling to improve coding efficiency (Ling- ¶0092).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keming Cao et al. [US 20220394269 A1] in view of Keming Cao(Keming’) et al. [EE2-related: Fusion for template-based intra mode derivation: JVET-W0123-v2].
Regarding claim 5, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, Keming does not teach explicitly:
wherein the determining the first prediction block based on the intra template matching prediction IntraTMP mode comprises: performing template matching on the current block based on the IntraTMP mode, to obtain a plurality of matching blocks; and performing weighting processing on the plurality of matching blocks to obtain the first prediction block.
In the same field of endeavor, Keming’ teaches:
wherein the determining the first prediction block based on the intra template matching prediction IntraTMP mode comprises: performing template matching on the current block based on the IntraTMP mode, to obtain a plurality of matching blocks; and performing weighting processing on the plurality of matching blocks to obtain the first prediction block (i.e. Instead of selecting the only one mode with the smallest SATD cost, this contribution proposes to choose the first two modes with the smallest SATD costs for the intra modes derived using TIMD method and then fuse them with the weights, and such weighted intra prediction is used to code the current CU- page 2, section 2).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kemin with the teachings of Keming’ to achieve achieves 0.1% additional gain in AI configuration compared to the TIMD method without the fusion with the similar to EE2-2.1 runtime (Keming’- Conclusions).
Regarding claim 15, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 11.
However, Keming does not teach explicitly:
wherein the determining the first prediction block of the current block in the current sequence based on the intra template matching prediction IntraTMP mode comprises: performing template matching on the current block based on the IntraTMP mode, to obtain a plurality of matching blocks; and performing weighting processing on the plurality of matching blocks to obtain the first prediction block.
In the same field of endeavor, Keming’ teaches:
wherein the determining the first prediction block of the current block in the current sequence based on the intra template matching prediction IntraTMP mode comprises: performing template matching on the current block based on the IntraTMP mode, to obtain a plurality of matching blocks; and performing weighting processing on the plurality of matching blocks to obtain the first prediction block (i.e. Instead of selecting the only one mode with the smallest SATD cost, this contribution proposes to choose the first two modes with the smallest SATD costs for the intra modes derived using TIMD method and then fuse them with the weights, and such weighted intra prediction is used to code the current CU- page 2, section 2).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kemin with the teachings of Keming’ to achieve achieves 0.1% additional gain in AI configuration compared to the TIMD method without the fusion with the similar to EE2-2.1 runtime (Keming’- Conclusions).
Claims 7, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keming Cao et al. [US 20220394269 A1] in view of Muhammed Coban et al. [Algorithm description of Enhanced Compression Model 7 (ECM 7): JVET-AB2025].
Regarding claim 7, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, Keming does not teach explicitly:
wherein the determining the target prediction block of the current block based on the first prediction block and the second prediction block comprises:
dividing the current block into a plurality of regions;
determining, for a first region in the plurality of regions, a weight value of the first prediction block for the first region and a weight value of the second prediction block for the first region; and
performing weighting processing on the first prediction block and the second prediction block in the first region by using the weight value of the first prediction block for the first region and the weight value of the second prediction block for the first region, to obtain a prediction value of the first region,
wherein the target prediction block comprises a prediction value of each region in the plurality of regions.
In the same field of endeavor, Muhammed teaches:
wherein the determining the target prediction block of the current block based on the first prediction block and the second prediction block comprises:
dividing the current block into a plurality of regions (see fig. 6, section 3.1.10);
determining, for a first region in the plurality of regions (i.e. sub-blocks- section 3.1.10), a weight value of the first prediction block for the first region and a weight value of the second prediction block for the first region(i.e. The (wIntra, wInter) for different sub-blocks are shown in Table 1- section 3.1.10); and
performing weighting processing on the first prediction block and the second prediction block in the first region by using the weight value of the first prediction block for the first region and the weight value of the second prediction block for the first region, to obtain a prediction value of the first region wherein the target prediction block comprises a prediction value of each region in the plurality of regions (i.e. In addition, it is also proposed to modify the weights (wIntra, wInter) for the two tests if the derived intra prediction mode is an angular mode- section 3.1.10, fig. 6),
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kemin with the teachings of Muhammed speed-up the template matching process (Muhammed- page 8).
Regarding claim 8, Keming and Muhammed teach the limitations of claim 7.
However, Keming does not teach explicitly:
wherein the dividing the current block into the plurality of regions comprises: dividing the first region into a plurality of regions based on the first prediction mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Muhammed teaches:
wherein the dividing the current block into the plurality of regions comprises: dividing the first region into a plurality of regions based on the first prediction mode (i.e. For near-horizontal modes (2 <= angular mode index < 34), the current block is vertically divided as shown in Figure 6(a); for near-vertical modes (34 <= angular mode index <= 66), the current block is horizontally divided as shown in Figure 6(b)- section 3.1.10).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kemin with the teachings of Muhammed speed-up the template matching process (Muhammed- page 8).
Regarding claim 17, Keming teaches the limitations of claim 11.
However, Keming does not teach explicitly:
wherein the determining a target prediction block of the current block based on the first prediction block and the second prediction block comprises:
dividing the current block into a plurality of regions;
determining, for a first region in the plurality of regions, a weight value of the first prediction block in the first region and a weight value of the second prediction block in the first region; and
performing weighting processing on the first prediction block and the second prediction block in the first region by using the weight value of the first prediction block in the first region and the weight value of the second prediction block in the first region, to obtain a predicted value of the first region, wherein the target prediction block comprises a predicted value of each region in the plurality of regions,
wherein the dividing the current block into a plurality of regions comprises: dividing the first region into a plurality of regions based on the first prediction mode
In the same field of endeavor, Muhammed teaches:
wherein the determining the target prediction block of the current block based on the first prediction block and the second prediction block comprises:
dividing the current block into a plurality of regions (see fig. 6, section 3.1.10);
determining, for a first region in the plurality of regions (i.e. sub-blocks- section 3.1.10), a weight value of the first prediction block for the first region and a weight value of the second prediction block for the first region(i.e. The (wIntra, wInter) for different sub-blocks are shown in Table 1- section 3.1.10); and
performing weighting processing on the first prediction block and the second prediction block in the first region by using the weight value of the first prediction block for the first region and the weight value of the second prediction block for the first region, to obtain a prediction value of the first region wherein the target prediction block comprises a prediction value of each region in the plurality of regions (i.e. In addition, it is also proposed to modify the weights (wIntra, wInter) for the two tests if the derived intra prediction mode is an angular mode- section 3.1.10, fig. 6);
wherein the dividing the current block into a plurality of regions comprises: dividing the first region into a plurality of regions based on the first prediction mode (i.e. For near-horizontal modes (2 <= angular mode index < 34), the current block is vertically divided as shown in Figure 6(a); for near-vertical modes (34 <= angular mode index <= 66), the current block is horizontally divided as shown in Figure 6(b)- section 3.1.10).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Kemin with the teachings of Muhammed speed-up the template matching process (Muhammed- page 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLIFFORD HILAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8397. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-1400.
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, SATH V PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
CLIFFORD HILAIRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/CLIFFORD HILAIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights