DETAILED ACTION
The communication is in response to the application received July 18, 2025, wherein claims 1-20 are pending and are examined as follows.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant' s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (PCT/CN2023/073451) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on July 18, 2025 and June 2, 2026. 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 following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
Field of the Invention.
Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities.
Throughout the Applicant’s specification, the word “region” is misspelled as “regin”. See, for example, ¶ [0041] of the Applicant’s specification.
In ¶ [0229] and [0230], reference is made to full reconstruction search regions R1, R2, R3, and R4 and to-be-determined reconstruction search regions R5 and R6 in FIG. 13. However, FIG. 13 does not show these labels, nor do any of the regional configurations (a), (b), (c), and (d), depicted therein, show six distinct regions that could reasonably correspond to R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, and R6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-4, 6, and 9-10, the word “availability” is misspelled.
In claims 3 and 4, all instances of the word “if” should be changed to “when” (or some other appropriate equivalent thereof) so as to provide completeness in the case that a given logical "if" circumstance is not accompanied by a logical "else" circumstance within the context of the given claim limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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.
REGARDING CLAIMS 1-3, 9, 10, 16, and 19, the claims recite that the “to-be-determined reconstructed search region” comprises “a reconstructed sample and/or an unreconstructed sample”. As such, the scope of the claims encompasses a search region that may contain unreconstructed samples. In such instances, it is unclear why a search region containing unreconstructed samples would be characterized as a “reconstructed search region”. Because the claim language is unclear as to what constitutes a “to-be-determined reconstructed search region”, the scope of the claims cannot be construed with reasonable certainty, thus rendering the claims indefinite.
REGARDING CLAIMS 1-2, 9, 10, 16, and 19, the claims recite “separately searching the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region”. By using the conjunction “and/or”, the claims encompass embodiments in which only one of the two recited search regions is searched. In such embodiments, the recited requirement of “separately searching” lacks sufficient clarity, because a single region cannot be “separately” searched relative to another that is not searched at all. Therefore, the scope of the claims cannot be construed with reasonable certainty and the claims are thus rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal (Venugopal, Gayathri. Region-based Template Matching for Next Generation Video Coding. Technischen Universität Berlin, 2022. PhD Dissertation), in view of Jang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0297677 A1).
REGARDING CLAIM 1, Venugopal discloses a template-matching intra prediction method, in which decoding includes:
determining a first template corresponding to a current coding block (cf. Venugopal Figure 3.23 and page 45, ¶ 1. τC is the template associated with the current coding block Bc)
determining a fully reconstructed search region according to the first template, wherein the fully reconstructed search region comprises a reconstructed sample (cf. Venugopal page 18, Figure 2.9 and page 44, Figure 3.23. The reference area [i.e. fully reconstructed search region ; cf. Venugopal page 2, Section 1.2 ¶ 1 lines 3] is in the immediate neighborhood of Bc and the associated template τC [i.e. first template] bordering it.);
separately searching the fully reconstructed search region and determining one or more block vectors of the current coding block (cf. Venugopal page 15, Section 2.3.1, ¶ 1 lines 2-5; page 27, Section 3.2.1, ¶ 1, lines 22; page 35 ¶ 2, lines 6-7; page 85, ¶ 1, lines 3-4; page 129, ¶ 2, lines 1-2, page 135, ¶ 4, lines 13. Block vectors are displacement vectors between the current coding block Bc and the reference block in the reference area. See page 15, Section 2.3.1, ¶ 1 lines 2-5, page 27, Section 3.2.1, ¶ 1, lines 22, page 35 ¶ 2, lines 6-7, and page 129, ¶ 2, lines 1-2.).
However, Venugopal does not expressly teach:
determining a to-be-determined reconstructed search region according to the first template, wherein the to-be-determined reconstructed search region comprises a reconstructed sample and/or an unreconstructed sample;
separately searching the to-be-determined reconstructed search region
Jang, from the same field of endeavor (i.e. template matching intra-prediction for video frame encoding/decoding) discloses an intra-prediction method that includes:
determining a to-be-determined reconstructed search region according to the first template, wherein the to-be-determined reconstructed search region comprises a reconstructed sample and/or an unreconstructed sample (cf. Jang FIG.13, FIG. 14, and ¶ [0134]-[0139]. Jang shows that template-matching "corresponding region" may not be completely reconstructed and may include both reconstructed and non-reconstructed portions, particularly in areas near the current coding block 1360 [ ¶ [0134], lines 5-8 ]. Further note from FIG. 13 and FIG. 14 that aforementioned corresponding region is determined according to coding block 1360 and its corresponding template [i.e. first template] RefD);
separately searching the to-be-determined reconstructed search region (cf. Jang FIG. 13, FIG. 14, and ¶ [0138]-[0139]. Samples in the partially reconstructed, to-be-determined region are processed separately from fully reconstructed samples, in order to derive their respective predictions
P
r
e
d
D
i
r
(
X
)
T
-
k
n
o
w
n
and
P
r
e
d
D
i
r
(
X
)
T
-
u
n
k
o
w
n
[ cf. ¶ [0139] ]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the search regions of Venugopal (e.g. Venugopal, Figure 3.23) to include the partially reconstructed regions (i.e. to-be-determined reconstructed search regions) disclosed by Jang, in order to exploit additional template matching candidates located near the current block (Jang ¶ [0136], lines 1-3) while accommodating overlap between predicted regions (Jang ¶ [0136], lines 5-10]).
REGARDING CLAIM 2, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Venugopal further teaches:
traversing search points in the fully reconstructed search region, and determining, according to a preset matching criterion, first matching cost values between the first template and matching templates corresponding to the search points in the fully reconstructed search region (cf. Venugopal page 8, ¶ 3, lines 7-10 and ¶ 4, lines 1-5 ; page 21, ¶ 1, lines 1-3, and page 43-45 Section 3.3. Each of the nr subregions comprising the reference area is search sequentially [cf. Figures 3.24-3.27 on page 46-47]. One or more reference templates τr [i.e. matching templates] are found for each region, and an SSD error,
ϵ
r
v
[i.e. matching cost], is determined between τr and the current coding block template τC [equation (3.23)]. RDO [page 2, Section 1.2, ¶ 1, lines 1-7] is performed by identifying the minimum
ϵ
r
v
[i.e. the preset matching criterion] over the set of
ϵ
r
v
– cf. equation (3.24));
determining, according to the first matching cost values, the one or more block vectors and one or more candidate templates corresponding to the one or more block vectors (cf. Venugopal page 43-45 Section 3.3. Block vectors are displacement vectors between the current coding block Bc and the reference block [and/or their respective templates]. See page 15, Section 2.3.1, ¶ 1 lines 2-5, page 27, Section 3.2.1, ¶ 1, lines 22, page 35 ¶ 2, lines 6-7, and page 129, ¶ 2, lines 1-2. Reference blocks, and their respective templates, τr [i.e. candidate templates], are determined according to the matching cost value
ϵ
r
v
[equation (3.23)])
Jang further teaches:
traversing search points in the to-be-determined reconstructed search region, and determining, according to the preset matching criterion, second matching cost values between the first template and matching templates corresponding to search points that meet a preset availability condition in the to-be-determined reconstructed search region (cf. Jang ¶ [0136]-[0137]. Samples in the to-be-determined reconstructed search region of Jang are evaluated and, thus, require traversal. A "prediction error [i.e. a second matching cost] due to comparison with the template reconstructed block RecR " can only be calculated using reconstructed samples [Jang ¶ [0137] lines 9-12]. Thus, Jang teaches determining second matching costs for candidate search points that satisfy a preset availability condition, namely, the availability of reconstructed samples for matching-cost computation. This interpretation of "preset availability condition is consistent with the Applicant's disclosure. See ¶ [0244] of the Applicant’s specification. The minimum prediction errors are identified [i.e. a preset matching criterion is determined] from among the determined prediction errors. Note that, in searching both the fully reconstructed search region and a to-be-determined reconstructed search region, the matching costs of samples in the fully reconstructed region (i.e. first matching costs) and the to-be-determined region (i.e. second matching costs) would both be used to determine "the one or more block vectors and one or more candidate templates corresponding to the one or more block vectors" over the entire search space, as described in Venugopal [cf. Figure 3.23 and page 45, ¶ 1, lines 1-3]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the decoding method, obtained by combining Venugopal and Jang, so that an optimum matching cost(s) (i.e. minimum prediction error(s) – cf. Jang ¶ [0101] lines 7-10 and ¶ [0137] lines 9-11) is evaluated only for available reconstructed samples (cf. Jang ¶ [0137] lines 11-12) in the to-be-determined reconstructed search region in order to enable template-matching, as disclosed by both Venugopal and Jang, to occur in the to-be-determined reconstructed search region (Jang ¶ [0137]).
REGARDING CLAIM 3, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 2. Jang further teaches:
determining whether a current search point in the to-be-determined reconstructed search
region meets the preset availability condition (cf. Jang ¶ [0137] lines 9-12. Because the "prediction error" [i.e. second matching cost] can only be calculated using reconstructed samples, a current search point in the to-be-determined reconstructed search region must satisfy a preset availability condition before the prediction error can be determined, the condition being that the samples associated with the search point are reconstructed.);
if the current search point meets the preset availability condition, determining, according to the preset matching criterion, a second matching cost value between the first template and a matching template corresponding to the current search point (cf. Jang ¶ [0137] lines 6-12 and [0111] lines 1-5. The prediction error [second matching cost] is calculated only when samples associated with the search point are reconstructed - i.e. when "the current search point meets the preset availability condition").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the decoding method, obtained by combining Venugopal and Jang, so that minimum prediction errors (i.e. second matching costs determined according to the preset matching criterion) are calculated for search points, within the partially reconstructed (i.e. to-be-determined reconstructed search) region, determined to meet an availability condition (i.e. whether search points are reconstructed). The motivation for combining Venugopal and Jang, in this manner, has been discussed above, with respect to claim 2.
REGARDING CLAIM 4, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 3. Jang further teaches:
if the current search point does not meet the preset availability condition, skipping the determining of the second matching cost value (cf. Jang ¶ [0137] lines 9-12. The prediction error [i.e. second matching cost] is calculated only when samples associated with the search point are reconstructed - i.e. when "the current search point meets the preset availability condition". By implication, when "the current search point does not meet the preset availability condition" [i.e. when samples associated with the search point are not reconstructed], the calculation of the prediction error [i.e. second matching cost] is skipped.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the decoding method, obtained by combining Venugopal and Jang, so that the calculation of minimum prediction errors (i.e. second matching costs determined according to the preset matching criterion) is skipped for search points, within the partially reconstructed (i.e. to-be-determined reconstructed search) region, that do not to meet the availability condition (i.e. whether search points are reconstructed), because unreconstructed search points (i.e. search points that do not satisfy the availability condition) cannot be used in the calculation of prediction errors (Jang ¶ [0137] lines 11-12).
REGARDING CLAIM 5, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 2. Venugopal further teaches a preset availability condition comprising:
none of samples in a reconstruction block corresponding to a matching template of a current search point exceeds a preset search window range (cf. Venugopal page 44, Figure 3.23 and ¶ 1, lines 6-11. The template-matching search is confined to a defined search window. Thus, any reconstruction block corresponding to a matching template [e.g. τr] of a current search point that extends beyond the boundary of the search window are excluded from the search and, as such, not available.)
Since claim 5 recites the preset availability condition as comprising at least one or more of a disjunctive list of conditions, Venugopal's disclosure that "none of samples in a reconstruction block corresponding to a matching template of a current search point exceeds a preset search window ranges" falls within the scope of claim 5.
REGARDING CLAIM 6, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 2. Jang further teaches a preset availability condition comprising:
all of first identification samples in a matching template of a current search point have been reconstructed (cf. Jang FIG. 13 and ¶ [0137] lines 9-12. The prediction error is calculated using only reconstructed samples. Because the prediction error is calculated [ Jang ¶ [0111] lines 1-5 ] from the samples of the matching template [e.g. RefT in Jang FIG. 13] and its corresponding reconstruction block [e.g. RecT in Jang FIG. 13] of the current search point, Jang necessarily requires all samples [i.e. first identification samples] in the matching template [RefT] to have been reconstructed); and
all of second identification samples in a reconstruction block corresponding to a matching template of a current search point have been reconstructed (Because the prediction error is calculated [ Jang ¶ [0111] lines 1-5 ] from the samples of the matching template [e.g. RefT in Jang FIG. 13] and its corresponding reconstruction block [e.g. RecT in Jang FIG. 13] of the current search point, Jang necessarily requires all samples [i.e. second identification samples] in the reconstruction block [RecT] corresponding to the matching template to have been reconstructed);
wherein the first identification samples are one or more samples in the matching template (e.g. RefT in Jang FIG. 13) of the current search point; the second identification samples are one or more samples in the reconstruction block (e.g. RecT in Jang FIG. 13) corresponding to the matching template of the current search point.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the decoding method, obtained by combining Venugopal and Jang, so that the preset availability condition is that all of first identification samples in a matching template of a current search point have been reconstructed and/or that all of second identification samples in a reconstruction block corresponding to a matching template of a current search point have been reconstructed, because, as taught by Jang (Jang ¶ [0137] lines 11-12), a prediction error can only be calculated using reconstructed samples.
REGARDING CLAIM 7, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 2. Venugopal further teaches:
determining a preset quantity N corresponding to the candidate templates, wherein N is an integer greater than 0 (cf. Venugopal page 72, Section 4.6. Venugopal determines a number, np , of predictors, where np > 0 is an integer); and
determining N block vectors and N candidate templates corresponding to the N block vectors according to the first matching cost values and the second matching cost values (cf. Venugopal page 72, Section 4.6; p. 45, ¶ 1, lines 1-14 ; page 15, Section 2.3.1, ¶ 1 lines 2-5; page 27, Section 3.2.1, ¶ 1, lines 22; and page 35 ¶ 2, lines 6-7. SSD matching costs, ϵx , are computed for candidate templates and np predictors from those candidates are selected [Venugopal page 72, Section 4.6]. As with other reference blocks in the reference area [Section 2.3.1, ¶ 1 lines 2-5; page 27, Section 3.2.1, ¶ 1, lines 22; page 35 ¶ 2, lines 6-7], each selected predictor is associated with a corresponding block vector and candidate template, such that Venugopal’s the number of predictors np corresponds to the claimed quantity N. Note that, in searching both the fully reconstructed search region and a to-be-determined reconstructed search region, the matching costs of samples in the fully reconstructed region [i.e. first matching costs] and the to-be-determined region [i.e. second matching costs] would both be used to determine N block vectors and N candidate templates corresponding to the N block vectors.).
REGARDING CLAIM 8, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 7. Venugopal further teaches:
determining N least matching cost values among the first matching cost values and the second matching cost values (cf. Venugopal page 72, Section 4.6 and p. 45, ¶ 1, lines 1-14. np predictors are determined by evaluating the SSD error,
ϵ
r
v
, given in equation (3.23). These are the np least matching cost values among matching costs from across the search window, which includes both the fully reconstructed search region [first matching costs] and the to-be-determined reconstructed search region [second matching costs] - such that ϵ1 ≤ ϵ2 ≤ ϵ3 ≤ … ≤ ϵnp [Venugopal page 72, Section 4.6, ¶ 2, lines 2]).
determining, based on N search points corresponding to the N least matching cost values, the N block vectors and the N candidate templates corresponding to the N block vectors (The predictors Px, x = 1 ... np, correspond the blocks in the search window [i.e. search points], with the least matching costs ϵx. See Venugopal page 72, Section 4.6. As discussed above, each selected predictor is associated with a corresponding block vector and candidate template. See page 15, Section 2.3.1, ¶ 1 lines 2-5, page 27, Section 3.2.1, ¶ 1, lines 22, page 35 ¶ 2, lines 6-7, and page 129, ¶ 2, lines 1-2.).
REGARDING CLAIM 9, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 7. Venugopal further teaches:
separately searching the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region according to a first search step size (cf. Venugopal page 45, ¶ 1, lines 1-3 and Section 3.4, ¶ 1, lines 1-5. Venugopal teaches exhaustively traversing all search points throughout the search region [i.e. “any possible template in the region Γv ” (page 45, ¶ 1, lines 1-3) and “all possible integer positions in the given region” (Section 3.4, ¶ 1, lines 1-5) for all regions Venugopal]. Thus, Venugopal teaches searching according to a search step size [i.e. a first search step size] corresponding to the spacing between adjacent evaluated search points).
determining the first matching cost values corresponding to the search points in the fully reconstructed search region and the second matching cost values corresponding to the search points that meet the preset availability condition in the to-be-determined reconstructed search region (As discussed above, Venugopal teaches evaluating the matching cost [first matching costs and/or second matching costs] associated with each search point across the entire search window. Further, an availability condition(s) is evaluated, with Jang teaching the evaluation of an availability condition for points within the to-be-determined search region. See the discussion above, with respect to claim 2)
determining, based on the first matching cost values and the second matching cost values, the N block vectors and the N candidate templates corresponding to the N block vectors (Each of the np predictors [cf. Venugopal page 72, Section 4.6] is associated with a corresponding candidate template [τb] and block vector [cf. page 15, Section 2.3.1, ¶ 1 lines 2-5; page 27, Section 3.2.1, ¶ 1, lines 22; and page 35 ¶ 2, lines 6-7] selected according to matching costs [e.g.
ϵ
r
v
of equation (3.23)]. Therefore, Venugopal teaches determining the claimed N block vectors and N candidate templates corresponding to the N block vectors based on the first and second matching cost values)
REGARDING CLAIM 11, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Venugopal further teaches:
determining one or more reference blocks of the current coding block according to the one or more block vectors (cf. Venugopal page 15, section 2.3.1, ¶ 1, pages 16-17, Section 2.3.2 and pages 43-44, Section 3.3. In template matching, such as disclosed by Venugopal, reference blocks Br are determined [cf. Figure 2.7]. These have corresponding block vectors [cf. section 2.3.1, ¶ 1, lines 3-5 and page 35, ¶ 2, lines 6-7])
determining a predicted value of the current coding block according to the one or more reference blocks (cf. Venugopal page 45, ¶ 1, lines 12-14. At least one reference block
B
p
v
is used as a predictor [i.e. predicted value] for the current coding block Bc).
REGARDING CLAIM 12, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 2. Venugopal further teaches that:
the preset matching criterion includes any one of: a sum of absolute difference (SAD), a sum of absolute transformed difference (SATD), a sum of squared error (SSE), a mean absolute difference (MAD), a mean absolute error (MAE), a mean square error (MSE), or a normalized correlation coefficient (NCC). (cf. Venugopal page 45, lines 1-14. Note that SSD [sum of squared differences] and sum of squared error [SSE] are essentially identical terms of art. As discussed above, with respect to claim 2, the preset matching criterion, represented by equation (3.24), determines the minimum SSD among samples in the search region).
REGARDING CLAIM 13, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 11. Venugopal further teaches that determining the predicted value of the current coding block according to the one or more reference blocks comprises:
determining one or more weight values corresponding to the one or more reference blocks; and performing weighted fusion processing on the one or more reference blocks according to the one or more weight values, to determine the predicted value of the current coding block (cf. Venugopal page 72, ¶ 2, lines 1-7. According to equation (4.1), a weight, wx, is assigned to each of the np predictors Px (i.e. reference blocks with the least error ϵx). Though Venugopal does not refer to equation (4.1) as a weighted fusion, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize equation (4.1) as having the generalized form of a weighted fusion. Venugopal teaches using equation (4.1) to determine the final predicted value, Pfinal, for the current coding block – cf. Venugopal page 72, ¶ 2, line 4.)
REGARDING CLAIM 14, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Venugopal further teaches that determining the first template corresponding to current coding block comprises:
determining a template type corresponding to the current coding block, and determining the first template corresponding to the current coding block according to the template type (cf. Venugopal Sections 4.2 and 4.3 on pages 61 and 63. A template type [cf. Figure 4.2] and/or template thickness η [cf. Figure 4.1] is determined for the templates used by the current coding block [i.e. the first template] and reference blocks in the searched reference area. Furthermore, template dimension corresponds directly to the dimensions, M and N, of the current coding block).
REGARDING CLAIM 15, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 14. Venugopal further teaches that the determining the template type corresponding to the current coding block comprises:
determining the template type of the current coding block according to a size of the current coding block (cf. Venugopal page 18, Figure 2.9. Note that the templates having different dimensions can be construed to have different types, when “template type” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Applicant’s disclosure. See Applicant’s specification ¶ [0090], [0173] [0174], [0177] and FIG. 3, noting that, in ¶ [0173], Applicant expressly “sets no specific limitation” as to the determination of the template type. As shown in Figure 2.9 of Venugopal, templates corresponding to the current coding block are of the type having dimensions M x N, where M and N are the width and height, respectively, of the current coding block [cf. Venugopal page 152]).
REGARDING CLAIM 16, the region-based template matching (RTM) intra-prediction method of Venugopal is integrated into a block-based hybrid video compression model (Venugopal page 5, Section 2.1, ¶ 2, lines 1-2 and page 8, ¶ 2). In this model (Venugopal Figure 2.1), the same predictors are generated at both the encoder and the decoder. In particular, in template-matching prediction, predictors are “derived by identical [template-matching (TM)]-based search processes at the decoder and encoder” (Venugopal page 15, Section 2.3, ¶ 1, lines 7-8 and page 17, ¶ 1, lines 4-5). Similarly, Jang shows mirrored template-matching intra-prediction methods at both the decoder and encoder (cf. Jang FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 and ¶ [0014]-[0015]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the template-matching intra-prediction methods disclosed by Venugopal and Jang are not limited to decoder-side operation and both Venugopal and Jang suggest application of those methods to encoding operations. Therefore, the rationale set forth in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable to the identically recited limitations of claim 16. The encoding method of claim 16 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Venugopal and Jang, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIM 17, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 16. Implementations of encoding methods utilizing template-matching intra-prediction as software stored in memory and executed by a processor are conventional, as demonstrated by Jang (cf. Jang FIG. 1 and ¶ [0198]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to realize the encoding method set forth in claim 16 using such a conventional software implementation (cf. Jang FIG. 1 and ¶ [0198]), with the same motivation as discussed above with respect to claim 16.
REGARDING CLAIM 18, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Implementations of decoding methods utilizing template-matching intra-prediction as software stored in memory and executed by a processor are conventional, as demonstrated by Jang (cf. Jang FIG. 2 and ¶ [0198]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to realize the decoding method set forth in claim 1 using such a conventional software implementation (cf. Jang FIG. 2 and ¶ [0198]), with the same motivation as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIM 19, as shown above, decoding methods utilizing template-matching intra-prediction can be implemented on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g. a memory), wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program (i.e. software), and when the computer program is executed, a decoding method is implemented. As shown in Jang (cf. Jang FIG. 2 and ¶ [0198]) and discussed above, such implementations are conventional. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the decoding method recited in claim 19 a using non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program, in order to realize the decoding method of claim 19 using a conventional implementation (cf. Jang FIG. 2 and ¶ [0198]).
Because the decoding method set forth in claim 19 comprises steps identical to those of claim 1, the rationale provided above for the rejection of claim 1 are applicable to the corresponding limitations of claim 19. Therefore, the steps of the method set forth in claim 19 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of the teachings of Venugopal and Jang, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIM 20, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 16. As shown above, encoding methods utilizing template-matching intra-prediction can be implemented on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (e.g. a memory), wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program (i.e. software), and when the computer program is executed, an encoding method is implemented. As shown in Jang (cf. Jang FIG. 1 and ¶ [0198]) and discussed above, such implementations are conventional. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the decoding method of claim 20 a using non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program, in order to realize the decoding method of claim 20 using a conventional implementation (cf. Jang FIG. 1 and ¶ [0198]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal (Venugopal, Gayathri. Region-based Template Matching for Next Generation Video Coding. Technischen Universität Berlin, 2022. PhD Dissertation), in view of Jang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0297677 A1), and in further view of JVET (Coban, M. et al. "Algorithm description of Enhanced Compression Model 7 (ECM 7)" document JVET-AB2025, 28th Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) Meeting Mainz, DE, 20–28 October 2022).
REGARDING CLAIM 10, Venugopal and Jang, as combined in the manner discussed above, have been shown to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 7. As discussed above, with respect to claim 9, Venugopal, in combination with Jang, teaches:
determining the first matching cost values corresponding to the search points in the fully reconstructed search region and the second matching cost values corresponding to the search points that meet the preset availability condition in the to-be-determined reconstructed search region.
However, neither Venugopal nor Jang expressly teach:
separately searching the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region according to a first search step size;
determining, based on the first matching cost values and the second matching cost values, M reference block vectors and M matching reconstruction blocks corresponding to the M reference block vectors, wherein M is an integer greater than 0;
determining a first search region according to the M matching reconstruction blocks, wherein the first search region is less than a total region formed by the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region;
searching the first search region according to a second search step size, to determine third matching cost values between the first template and matching templates corresponding to search points that meet the preset availability condition in the first search region, wherein the first search step size is greater than the second search step size; and
determining the N block vectors and the N candidate templates corresponding to the N block vectors according to the first matching cost values, the second matching cost values, and/or the third matching cost values.
In contrast, JVET, from the same field of endeavor (i.e. Intra Template Matching Prediction), teaches a multi-pass, coarse-to-fine IntraTMP search process, that includes:
separately searching the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region according to a first search step size (cf. JVET pages 7-9, Section 3.1.7. JVET teaches subsampling the search range of all search regions by a factor of two [JVET page 8, lines 20-21] during the initial template matching search, thereby searching according to a first search step size. [JVET page 8, lines 20]);
determining, based on matching cost values, M reference block vectors and M matching reconstruction blocks corresponding to the M reference block vectors, wherein M is an integer greater than 0 (cf. JVET page 8, lines 3-16 and 20-17, page 9, Section 3.1.7.1. JVET teaches that a template matching search [e.g. IntraTMP] can yield one or more [i.e. some integer M > 0] “IntraTMP block vectors” as “spatial candidates” – cf. JVET, page 9, lines 11. Spatial candidates can be determined as reference blocks whose corresponding templates have the least value of a cost function, or matching cost, calculated during each pass of a template matching search – cf. JVET page 8, lines 9-12 and lines 20-23);
determining a first search region according to the M matching reconstruction blocks, wherein the first search region is less than a total region formed by the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region (cf. JVET page 8, lines 22-23. The search refinement occurs on a reduced search range around the best match or matches identified during the initial search. The reduced search range can be reasonably understood to constitute a first search region determined according to the candidate matching reconstruction block(s) identified during the initial subsampled search);
searching the first search region according to a second search step size, to determine third matching cost values between the first template and matching templates corresponding to search points that meet the preset availability condition in the first search region, wherein the first search step size is greater than the second search step size (cf. JVET page 8, lines 3-16 and 20-17. Refinement is done via a second template matching search around the best match within a reduced range. A second refinement search necessitates a finer search granularity – i.e. that the first search step size is greater than the second search step size. JVET further teaches that during each pass of the template matching search, the cost function, SAD [JVET page 8, lines 9-11], is calculated between the first template and matching templates [i.e. “L-shaped causal neighbors” – cf. JVET page 8 lines 3-4] for sampled blocks, which must be within the prescribed search range [cf. JVET page 8, lines 12-16] – i.e. satisfy a preset availability condition. Calculating SAD during this “second template matching search” constitutes “determine third matching cost third matching cost”, when given a broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the applicant’s disclosure. See, for example, ¶ [0299] and [0309]-[0311] of the Applicant’s disclosure, noting that “third matching values” are the matching costs determined on the second search pass, using a refined search increment.); and
determining the N block vectors and the N candidate templates corresponding to the N block vectors according to the first matching cost values, the second matching cost values, and/or the third matching cost values (cf. JVET page 8, lines 10-11 and lines 20-23. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “the second template matching search”, taught in JVET, yields at least one [i.e. some integer N > 0] of candidate block vectors corresponding to the lowest SAD values [i.e. third matching cost] and the candidate templates corresponding to those block vectors).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the template search optimization taught in JVET into the template-matching intra-prediction method resulting from the combination of Venugopal and Jang, discussed above, in order to “speed-up” template-matching by reducing search complexity through localized refinement (cf. JVET page 8, lines 20-23). Note that, because the method of Venugopal and Jang employ a first matching cost and a second matching cost, as discussed above with respect to claims 2 and 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, by incorporating the template search optimization of JVET into the method of Venugopal and Jang:
determining M reference block vectors and M matching reconstruction blocks corresponding to the M reference block vectors, wherein M is an integer greater than 0, is based on the first matching cost values and the second matching cost values
as required by claim 10.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 11-12, 14-16, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 11, 15, 16, 19, and 20 of co-pending Application No. 19/352,827 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Instant Application No. 19/273,656
Co-Pending Application No. 19/352,827
CLAIM 1
CLAIM 1
A decoding method, applied to a decoder, wherein the method comprises:
A method of decoding, applied to a decoder, comprising:
determining a first template corresponding to a current coding block;
determining a first template corresponding to a current block;
determining a fully reconstructed search region and/or a to-be-determined reconstructed search region according to the first template, wherein the fully reconstructed search region comprises a reconstructed sample, and the to-be-determined reconstructed search region comprises a reconstructed sample and/or an unreconstructed sample; and
determining at least one of a fully reconstructed search region or an undetermined reconstructed search region according to the first template, wherein the fully reconstructed search region comprises reconstructed samples, and the undetermined reconstructed search region comprises at least one of reconstructed samples or unreconstructed samples;
performing a region selection based on at least one of the fully reconstructed search region or the undetermined reconstructed search region, to determine at least one of a selected fully reconstructed search region or a selected undetermined reconstructed search region, wherein the selected fully reconstructed search region is smaller than or equal to the fully reconstructed search region, and the selected undetermined reconstructed search region is smaller than or equal to the undetermined reconstructed search region; and
separately searching the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region and determining one or more block vectors of the current coding block.
searching in at least one of the selected fully reconstructed search region or the selected undetermined reconstructed search region respectively, to determine one or more Block Vectors (BVs) for the current block.
CLAIM 12
CLAIM 4
[LIMITATIONS INHERITED FROM CLAIM 2]
The method according to claim 1, wherein the separately searching the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region to determine the one or more block vector of the current coding block comprises:
The method of claim 1, wherein searching in at least one of the selected fully reconstructed search region or the selected undetermined reconstructed search region respectively, to determine the one or more BVs for the current block comprises:
traversing search points in the fully reconstructed search region, and determining, according to a preset matching criterion, first matching cost values between the first template and matching templates corresponding to the search points in the fully reconstructed search region;
traversing search points in the selected fully reconstructed search region, and determining first matching cost values between matching templates corresponding to the search points in the selected fully reconstructed search region and the first template according to a preset matching criteria;
traversing search points in the to-be-determined reconstructed search region, and determining, according to the preset matching criterion, second matching cost values between the first template and matching templates corresponding to search points that meet a preset availability condition in the to-be-determined reconstructed search region;
traversing search points in the selected undetermined reconstructed search region, and determining second matching cost values between matching templates corresponding to search points in the selected undetermined reconstructed search region that meet a preset availability condition and the first template according to the preset matching criteria;
determining, according to the first matching cost values and the second matching cost values, the one or more block vectors and one or more candidate templates corresponding to the one or more block vectors.
determining the one or more BVs and one or more candidate templates corresponding to the one or more BVs, according to the first matching cost values and the second matching cost values.
[CLAIM 12 LIMITATIONS]
The method according to claim 2, wherein the preset matching criterion includes any one of: a sum of absolute difference (SAD), a sum of absolute transformed difference (SATD), a sum of squared error (SSE), a mean absolute difference (MAD), a mean absolute error (MAE), a mean square error (MSE), or a normalized correlation coefficient (NCC).
wherein the preset matching criteria comprises any one of Sum of Absolute Difference (SAD), Sum of Absolute Transformed Difference (SATD), Sum of Squared Differences (SSE), Mean Absolute Deviation (MAD), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Square Error (MSE), or Normalized Correlation Coefficient (NCC).
CLAIM 11
CLAIM 11
The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining one or more reference blocks of the current coding block according to the one or more block vectors; and
determining one or more reference blocks for the current block according to the one or more BVs; and
determining a predicted value of the current coding block according to the one or more reference blocks.
determining prediction values of the current block according to the one or more reference blocks.
CLAIM 14
CLAIM 15
The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining the first template corresponding to current coding block comprises:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining the first template corresponding to the current block comprises:
determining a template type corresponding to the current coding block, and determining the first template corresponding to the current coding block according to the template type.
determining a template type corresponding to the current block, and determining the first template corresponding to the current block according to the template type.
CLAIM 15
CLAIM 16
The method according to claim 14, wherein the determining the template type corresponding to the current coding block comprises:
The method of claim 15, wherein determining the template type corresponding to the current block comprises:
determining the template type of the current coding block according to a reference pixel of the current coding block; or
determining the template type of the current block according to reference pixels of the current block; or
determining the template type of the current coding block according to indication information in a bitstream; or
determining the template type of the current block according to indication information in a bitstream; or
determining the template type of the current coding block according to a size of the current coding block;
determining the template type of the current block according to a size of the current block,
wherein the reference pixel of the current coding block comprises at least one of the following: a left adjacent reference pixel of the current coding block, an above adjacent reference pixel of the current coding block, an above left adjacent reference pixel of the current coding block, a below left adjacent reference pixel of the current coding block, or an above right adjacent reference pixel of the current coding block.
wherein the reference pixels of the current block comprise at least one of left neighbouring reference pixels of the current block, upper neighbouring reference pixels of the current block, upper left neighbouring reference pixels of the current block, lower left neighbouring reference pixels of the current block, or upper right neighbouring reference pixels of the current block.
CLAIM 16
CLAIM 19
An encoding method, applied to an encoder, wherein the method comprises:
A method of encoding, applied to an encoder, comprising:
determining a first template corresponding to a current coding block;
determining a first template corresponding to a current block;
determining a fully reconstructed search region and/or a to-be-determined reconstructed search region according to the first template, wherein the fully reconstructed search region comprises a reconstructed sample, and the to-be-determined reconstructed search region comprises a reconstructed sample and/or an unreconstructed sample; and
determining at least one of a fully reconstructed search region or an undetermined reconstructed search region according to the first template, wherein the fully reconstructed search region comprises reconstructed samples, and the undetermined reconstructed search region comprises at least one of reconstructed samples or unreconstructed samples;
performing a region selection based on at least one of the fully reconstructed search region or the undetermined reconstructed search region, to determine at least one of a selected fully reconstructed search region or a selected undetermined reconstructed search region, wherein the selected fully reconstructed search region is smaller than or equal to the fully reconstructed search region, and the selected undetermined reconstructed search region is smaller than or equal to the undetermined reconstructed search region; and
separately searching the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region and determining one or more block vectors of the current coding block.
searching in at least one of the selected fully reconstructed search region or the selected undetermined reconstructed search region respectively, to determine one or more Block Vectors (BVs) for the current block.
CLAIM 20
CLAIM 20
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed, the encoding method according to claim 16 is implemented.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program and a bitstream, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, enables the processor to perform the following operations to generate the bitstream:
[LIMITATIONS INHERITED FROM CLAIM 16]
determining a first template corresponding to a current coding block;
determining a first template corresponding to a current block;
determining a fully reconstructed search region and/or a to-be-determined reconstructed search region according to the first template, wherein the fully reconstructed search region comprises a reconstructed sample, and the to-be-determined reconstructed search region comprises a reconstructed sample and/or an unreconstructed sample; and
determining at least one of a fully reconstructed search region or an undetermined reconstructed search region according to the first template, wherein the fully reconstructed search region comprises reconstructed samples, and the undetermined reconstructed search region comprises at least one of reconstructed samples or unreconstructed samples;
performing a region selection based on at least one of the fully reconstructed search region or the undetermined reconstructed search region, to determine at least one of a selected fully reconstructed search region or a selected undetermined reconstructed search region, wherein the selected fully reconstructed search region is smaller than or equal to the fully reconstructed search region, and the selected undetermined reconstructed search region is smaller than or equal to the undetermined reconstructed search region; and
separately searching the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region and determining one or more block vectors of the current coding block.
____
searching in at least one of the selected fully reconstructed search region or the selected undetermined reconstructed search region respectively, to determine one or more Block Vectors (BVs) for the current block.
Regarding claims 1 and 16 (as well as claims, dependent therefrom, which inherit the respective limitations of these claims) of the instant application, please note that the following analysis treats the terms “undetermined reconstructed search region” recited in the claims of the co-pending application and “to-be-determined reconstructed search region” recited in the claims of the instant application as essentially identical, as these terms are treated identically in the respective disclosures of the co-pending and instant applications . See, for example, ¶ [0455] of the specification of the instant application and ¶ [0427] of the specification of the co-pending application. Co-pending claims 1 and 19 recite that the fully reconstructed region comprises reconstructed samples and that the undetermined reconstructed search region comprises at least one of reconstructed samples or unreconstructed samples. In contrast, claims 1 and 16 of the instant application recite that the fully reconstructed region comprises a reconstructed sample and that the to-be-determined reconstructed search region comprises a reconstructed sample and/or an unreconstructed sample. Because a region comprising reconstructed samples necessarily comprises a reconstructed sample, the fully reconstructed search region set forth in co-pending claim 1 and 19 encompasses the corresponding fully reconstructed search region of claims 1 and 16 of the instant application. Similarly, because at least one of reconstructed samples or unreconstructed samples necessarily comprises a reconstructed sample and/or an unreconstructed sample, the undetermined reconstructed search region set forth in co-pending claims 1 and 19 encompass the corresponding to-be-determined reconstructed search region of claims 1 and 16 of the instant application.
In addition, claims 1 and 19 of the co-pending application recite performing a region selection to determine at least one of a fully reconstructed search region or an undermined reconstructed search region, wherein the selected fully reconstructed search region and the selected undetermined reconstructed search region are smaller than or equal to the respective search region. As such, the co-pending claims 1 and 19 expressly encompass embodiments in which the selected fully reconstructed region comprises the entirety of the fully reconstructed region and the selected undetermined reconstructed search region comprises the entirety of the undetermined reconstructed search region.
Finally, claims 1 and 19 of the co-pending application recite searching in at least one of the selected fully reconstructed search region or the selected undetermined reconstructed search region. Searching at least one of the selected fully reconstructed search region or the selected undetermined reconstructed search region encompasses searching the fully reconstructed search region and/or the to-be-determined reconstructed search region, as set forth in claims 1 and 16 of the instant application. As to limitation of “separately searching” indicated in claims 1 and 16 of the instant application, note that searching in at least one of the selected fully reconstructed search region or the selected undetermined reconstructed search region respectively, as set forth in co-pending claims 1 and 19, is not limited to a simultaneous search of the indicated regions. Searching in at least one of the selected fully reconstructed search region or the selected undetermined reconstructed search region may comprise a separate search of the indicated regions. In light of the forgoing analysis, claims 1 and 16 of the instant application are in essence “species” of the generic invention set forth, respectively, in claims 1 and 19 of the co-pending application. It has been held that a generic invention is “anticipated” by a “species” within the scope of the generic invention. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claims 20 of the instant application, note that claim 20 of the co-pending application recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that cause a processor to generate a bitstream according to steps of the template matching intra-prediction method set forth in the other claims of the co-pending application. Because the process of encoding generally results in the generation of a bitstream, a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed, the encoding method according to claim 16 is implemented”, as recited in claim 20 of the instant application, essentially constitutes a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having stored thereon a computer program and a bitstream, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, enables the processor to perform the … operations to generate the bitstream”. Furthermore, because co-pending claim 20 recites steps that are essentially identical to the corresponding steps of co-pending claim 19, which was shown above to be anticipated by claim 16 of the instant application, co-pending claim 20 is likewise anticipated by the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium set forth in claim 20 of the instant application, for the same reasons articulated above with respect to claims 1 and 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892 for additional references.
Lim, W. et al. " EE2-3.2: Using block vector derived from IntraTMP for IBC " JVET-AB0061-v1, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 28th Meeting, Mainz, DE, 20–28 October 2022
Relevance: Lim et al. propose reusing block vectors from IntraTMP in IBC prediction. Further teaches determining and storing block vectors derived from template matching.
Huo, J. et al. " Non-EE2: Combination of JVET-AC0108, JVET-AC0109 and JVET-AC0110 for Intra TMP " document JVET-AC0111-v2, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 29th Meeting, by teleconference, 11–20 January 2023
Relevance: Huo et al. combine IntraTMP fusion with extended search regions and multiple candidate block vectors. The final prediction is determined via a fusion of multiple IntraTMP derived candidates. Note that the authors include members of the inventive entity of instant application.
Xiaoyu, X. et al. " Decoder-side intra mode derivation " document JVET-C0061, Joint Video Exploration Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 3rd Meeting: Geneva, CH, 26 May – 1 June 2016
Relevance: Xiaoyu et al. propose derivation of intra-prediction modes using template matching of reconstructed neighboring samples. In particular, Xiaoyu et al. teach a coarse-to-fine search refinement process in which an initial template matching search is followed by a search using a reduced “search interval” (i.e. step size). “ Unlike the template samples which are always from reconstructed region, the reference samples of template may not be reconstructed yet when encoding/decoding the target block. In this case, the existing reference samples substitution algorithm of JEM-2.0 [1] is utilized to substitute the unavailable reference samples with the available reference samples”.
Naser, K. et al. " EE2-1.14: IntraTMP adaptation for camera-captured content " document JVET-AB0130, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 28th Meeting, Mainz, DE, 20–28 October 2022
Relevance: Naser et al. disclose IntraTMP, wherein “the search region (R1 to R4 in Figure 1) are sub-sampled by a factor of 2. This reduces the template matching search by a factor of 4. After finding the best match, a refinement process is performed in which another template matching search is performed around the best match with a reduced search range”.
Naser, K. et al. " EE2: Intra Template Matching " document JVET-V0130-v6, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 22nd Meeting, by teleconference, 20–28 Apr. 2021
Relevance: Naser et al. describe adapting IntraTMP for camera-captured video using predefined search regions. “After finding the best match, a refinement process is performed in which another template matching search is performed around the best match with a reduced search range. The refined search range is defined as min(w,h)/2, where w and h are the current CU width and height.”
Fan, W. et al. " Non-EE2: multi-candidate IntraTMP " document JVET-AC0068-v2, Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29 29th Meeting, by teleconference, 11–20 January 2023
Relevance: Fan et al. proposes a multi-candidate IntraTMP method that constructs a candidate list by ranking block vectors according to a cost function. Fan et al. further teach expansion of the search space, maintaining a candidate block vector list, selecting the best candidate based on cost function optimization, and search optimization via a coarse-to-fine search refinement. Note that the authors are representatives of the assignee of the instant application.
M. Moinard, I. Amonou, P. Duhamel and P. Brault, "A set of template matching predictors for intra video coding," 2010 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Dallas, TX, USA, 2010, pp. 1422-1425, doi: 10.1109/ICASSP.2010.5495471.
Relevance: Moinard et al. describe template matching intra-prediction that selects predictors by minimizing SSD over reconstructed search regions. Of relevance is the maintenance of a list of multiple template matching candidates, and selecting among those candidates that minimize SSD matching costs.
Xu, J. et al. , U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2023/0019459 A1. ORDER-BASED UPDATING FOR INTRA BLOCK COPY IN VIDEO CODING. Published: January 19, 2023.
Relevance: Xu et al. disclose intra-prediction that evaluates whether reference samples satisfy reconstruction and availability conditions before they are used for prediction.
Xu, X. et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0228814 A1. METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VIDEO CODING. 2020.
Relevance: Xu et al. disclose intra-prediction that evaluates whether reference samples satisfy reconstruction and availability conditions before they are used for prediction. ¶ [0142] may suggest a search involving reconstructed and unreconstructed samples.
Wang, Y., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0224922 A1. SIGNALING FOR DECODER-SIDE INTRA MODE DERIVATION. 2022.
Relevance: Wang et al. discloses template matching intra-prediction using reconstructed neighboring samples, template regions, and prediction derived from template matching costs. Wang et al. further discusses template regions containing reconstructed and not-yet-reconstructed samples and the determination of availability of samples used for prediction.
Naser, K. et al., International Patent Application Publication No. WO2022207400A1. Template matching prediction for video encoding and decoding. 2022.
Relevance: Naser et al. discloses template matching prediction using reconstructed picture regions to identify prediction blocks. Naser et al. further teach determining whether reference samples satisfy availability conditions before they can be used for prediction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SIANGCHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0982. The examiner can normally be reached M, W-F 10:00am-06:00pm and Tu 09:00am-05:00pm EST.
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.
/K S/ Examiner, Art Unit 2486
/JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights