DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 10 SEPTEMBER 2025 and the Information Disclosure Statements.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2025 and 12/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0268594 A1 (hereinafter “Lim”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0316913 A1 (hereinafter “Jun”).
Regarding claim 1, Lim discloses a video decoding method ([0001], “video encoding method”), wherein the method comprises:
performing inter-prediction processing on a first block ([0310], “In an inter mode, the encoding apparatus 100 may perform inter prediction and/or motion compensation on a target block”), wherein the inter-prediction processing comprises subpixel interpolation filtering of samples of a reference block ([0720], “sub-pixel signals may be generated by utilizing an interpolation filter for signals represented by integer pixels (i.e. integer-pel or full pel), and the efficiency of intra prediction or inter prediction may be improved by exploiting the generated sub-pixels.” [0725], “Prediction may be intra prediction, or may be inter prediction which performs motion prediction on a sub-pixel basis.” [0750], “sub-pixels for motion compensation and reference sample generation”);
selecting an intra-prediction mode for a second block from a set of intra-prediction modes comprising a planar mode with index 0, a DC mode with index 1 and angular modes with indices 2 to (FIG. 6, planar mode 0, DC mode 1, and angular modes 2 to 33. [0258], “Intra prediction may be performed in consideration of the intra-prediction mode for the target block”), based on information indicative of the selected intra-prediction mode ([0178], “The entropy encoding unit 150 may generate a bitstream by performing probability distribution-based entropy encoding based on […] coding parameter values.” [0180], “The coding parameters may include information encoded by the encoding apparatus 100 and transferred from the encoding apparatus 100 to a decoding apparatus.” [0181], “the coding parameters may include values or statistical information, such as a prediction mode […]. The prediction mode may be an intra-prediction mode or an inter-prediction mode”);
performing intra-prediction processing on the second block according to the intra-prediction mode ([0258], “Intra prediction may be performed in consideration of the intra-prediction mode for the target block”), wherein the intra-prediction processing comprises subpixel interpolation filtering of reference samples ([0720], “sub-pixel signals may be generated by utilizing an interpolation filter for signals represented by integer pixels (i.e. integer-pel or full pel), and the efficiency of intra prediction or inter prediction may be improved by exploiting the generated sub-pixels.” [0725], “Prediction may be intra prediction, or may be inter prediction which performs motion prediction on a sub-pixel basis”); and
wherein the method further comprises selecting interpolation filter coefficients for the subpixel interpolation filtering based on subpixel offsets between an integer reference sample's position and fractional reference samples' positions ([0720], “sub-pixel signals may be generated by utilizing an interpolation filter for signals represented by integer pixels (i.e. integer-pel or full pel), and the efficiency of intra prediction or inter prediction may be improved by exploiting the generated sub-pixels.” Tables 3 to 21 describe a plurality of interpolation filter coefficients for implementing interpolation filters, dependent on precision (e.g., “offset”), whether it’s based on DCT or DST, and number of taps), wherein for the same subpixel offsets the same interpolation filter coefficients are selected for the intra-prediction processing and the inter-prediction processing ([0840], “The processing unit may select a specified interpolation filter from among multiple interpolation filters depending on the encoding mode of the block. For example, the encoding mode may include a skip mode, a merge mode, etc. for inter prediction. Further, the encoding mode may include a prediction mode (e.g. a DC mode, a planar mode, etc.) for intra prediction. In other words, depending on the encoding mode of the block, the interpolation filter selected from among multiple interpolation filters may differ. Here, depending on the encoding mode of the block, the filter taps and filter coefficients of the interpolation filters to be used may be selected in different forms.” Note, Tables 3 to 21 describe differences between precision, number of taps, and whether the filter is based on DCT or DST and because they are not disclosed as differing based on prediction type, it’s clear that given the same precision and number of taps, the same filter functions for both intra prediction and inter prediction).
Lim fails to expressly disclose a set of intra-prediction modes comprising a planar mode with index 0, a DC mode with index 1 and angular modes with indices 2 to 66.
However, Jun teaches a set of intra-prediction modes comprising a planar mode with index 0, a DC mode with index 1 and angular modes with indices 2 to 66 ([0251], “Angular modes (2-66) among the intra-prediction modes […] and non-angular modes 0 (planar mode) and 1 (DC mode)”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used more angular modes, as taught by Jun (FIG. 12), in Lim’s disclosure. One would have been motivated to modify Lim’s disclosure, by incorporating Jun’s disclosure, to efficiently encode using intra prediction (Jun: [0006]) by accessing additional angular modes that provide finer granularity to improve quality.
Regarding claim 2, Lim and Jun disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Lim discloses wherein the same selected filter coefficients are used for the subpixel interpolation filtering of chroma samples for the inter-prediction processing and of luma samples for the intra-predictions processing ([0831-0832], “When the block is a luma component block, the processing unit may select one or more predefined interpolation filters from among multiple interpolation filters.[¶] When the block is a chroma component block, the processing unit may select one or more predefined interpolation filters from among multiple interpolation filters.” Note, the predefined interpolation filters are previously disclosed in Tables 3 to 21 used for both intra and inter prediction and when using the same number of taps and precision, the same corresponding table applies).
Regarding claim 3, Lim and Jun disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Lim discloses wherein the selecting the interpolation filter coefficients comprises fetching the same interpolation filtering coefficients from a look-up table (See Tables 3 to 21 describing coefficients used by the processing unit for applying an interpolation filter).
Regarding claim 7, Lim and Jun disclose every limitation of claim 6, as outlined above. Additionally, Lim discloses wherein the information indicative of the selected intra-prediction mode is parsed from a video bitstream for the second block ([0178], “The entropy encoding unit 150 may generate a bitstream by performing probability distribution-based entropy encoding based on […] coding parameter values.” [0180], “The coding parameters may include information encoded by the encoding apparatus 100 and transferred from the encoding apparatus 100 to a decoding apparatus.” [0181], “the coding parameters may include values or statistical information, such as a prediction mode […]. The prediction mode may be an intra-prediction mode or an inter-prediction mode”).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1; however, written in machine form instead of process form. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 8. Additionally, Lim discloses one or more processors ([0519], “The processing unit 1310 may be at least one hardware processor”); and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming for execution by the processors, wherein the programming, when executed by the one or more processors, configures the video encoding device to carry out operations ([0512-0513], “computer-readable storage medium” and “storage medium may store at least one module required for the operation of the encoding apparatus”).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies to claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies to claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations are the same as those in claim 7. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 7 applies to claim 14.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0268594 A1 (hereinafter “Lim”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0316913 A1 (hereinafter “Jun”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0176596 A1 (hereinafter “Jeong”).
Regarding claim 4, Lim and Jun disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Lim and Jun fail to expressly disclose wherein a 4 tap filter is used for the subpixel interpolation filtering.
However, Jeong teaches wherein a 4 tap filter is used for the subpixel interpolation filtering ([0321] Table 2 is a 4-tap interpolation filter).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a 4-tap filter, as taught by Jeong (Table 2), in Lim and Jun’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Lim and Jun’s invention, by incorporating Jeong’s invention, to improve coding performance and efficiency (Jeong: [0002]).
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies to claim 11.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2019/0268594 A1 (hereinafter “Lim”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0316913 A1 (hereinafter “Jun”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0356909 A1 (hereinafter “Lainema”).
Regarding claim 6, Lim and Lainema disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Lim and Lainema fail to expressly disclose wherein the set of intra-prediction modes comprises wide-angle intra prediction modes for the non-square blocks.
However, Lainema teaches wherein the set of intra-prediction modes comprises wide-angle intra prediction modes for the non-square blocks ([0080], “In the case of non-square prediction blocks, this process can be advantageously modified and the shape of the block can be considered as part of the decoding process. One possibility to do this is to include wide angle modes with directionality over +45 degrees only for the main direction for which the block has its larger dimension”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used wide-angle intra prediction modes for non-square blocks, as taught by Lainema (Table 2), in Lim and Jun’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Lim and Jun’s invention, by incorporating Lainema’s invention, to enhance coding efficiency provided by the new intra prediction directions (Lainema: [0067]) by providing better correlation between samples (Lainema: [0072]).
Regarding claim 13, the limitations are the same as those in claim 6. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 6 applies to claim 13.
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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,405,612 B2 (hereinafter “Patent ‘612”), 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,968,362 B2 (hereinafter “Patent ‘362”), and U.S. Patent No. 12,439,040 B2 (hereinafter “Patent ‘040”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is entirely anticipated by Patent ‘612 and Patent ‘362, with exception of the intra modes and receiving information of the prediction mode; however, the claimed intra modes are standard prediction modes and the received information is the encoder indication of the selected predicted mode. The only distinction between the instant application and Patent ‘040 is the received information of the prediction mode and it is because the instant application is a decoder and as such, the prediction information is obtained from the bitstream. In contrast with Patent ‘040, which discloses an encoder and is therefore responsible for the inverse limitation of signaling the prediction mode. Each limitation not present in the independent claims of the instant application are present as dependent claims in the respective patent.
The following tables exemplify the similarities between claims 1-4 of the instant application and Patent ‘040. Independent claim 1 and claim 5 of the instant application together cover the subject matter of claim 1 in Patent ‘040.
Instant Applicant
Patent ‘040
Claim 1: A video decoding method, wherein the method comprises:
Claim 1: A video encoding method, wherein the method comprises:
performing inter-prediction processing on a first block, wherein the inter-prediction processing comprises subpixel interpolation filtering of samples of a reference block;
performing inter-prediction processing on a first block, wherein the inter-prediction processing comprises subpixel interpolation filtering of samples of a reference block;
selecting an intra-prediction mode for a second block from a set of intra-prediction modes comprising a planar mode with index 0, a DC mode with index 1 and angular modes with indices 2 to 66, based on information indicative of the selected intra-prediction mode;
selecting an intra-prediction mode for a second block from a set of intra-prediction modes comprising a planar mode with index 0, a DC mode with index 1 and angular modes with indices 2 to 66;
performing intra-prediction processing on the second block according to the intra-prediction mode, wherein the intra-prediction processing comprises subpixel interpolation filtering of reference samples; and
performing intra-prediction processing on the second block according to the intra-prediction mode, wherein the intra-prediction processing comprises subpixel interpolation filtering of reference samples;
wherein the method further comprises selecting interpolation filter coefficients for the subpixel interpolation filtering based on subpixel offsets between an integer reference sample's position and fractional reference sample’s positions, wherein for the same subpixel offsets the same interpolation filter coefficients are selected for the intra-prediction processing and the inter-prediction processing.
wherein the method further comprises selecting interpolation filter coefficients for the subpixel interpolation filtering based on subpixel offsets between an integer reference sample's position and fractional reference sample’s positions, wherein for the same subpixel offsets the same interpolation filter coefficients are selected for the intra-prediction processing and the inter-prediction processing; and
Claim 5: wherein the selecting the interpolation filter coefficients comprises selecting the same interpolation filter coefficients for fractional positions based on the below association between subpixel offsets and interpolation filter coefficients:
wherein the selecting the interpolation filter coefficients comprises selecting the same interpolation filter coefficients for fractional positions based on the below association between subpixel offsets and interpolation filter coefficients:
Claim 5: [SUBPIXEL OFFSET TABLE]
[SUBPIXEL OFFSET TABLE]
Claim 5: wherein the subpixel offsets are defined in 1/32 subpixel resolution and co to c3 represent the interpolation filter coefficients.
wherein the subpixel offsets are defined in 1/32 subpixel resolution and co to c3 represent the interpolation filter coefficients.
Instant Application
Patent ‘040
Claim 2: wherein the same selected filter coefficients are used for the subpixel interpolation filtering of chroma samples for the inter-prediction processing and of luma samples for the intra-prediction processing.
Claim 2: wherein the same selected filter coefficients are used for the subpixel interpolation filtering of chroma samples for the inter-prediction processing and of luma samples for the intra-prediction processing.
Instant Application
Patent ‘040
Claim 3: wherein the selecting the interpolation filter coefficients comprises fetching the same interpolation filtering coefficients from a look-up table.
Claim 3: wherein the selecting the interpolation filter coefficients comprises fetching the same interpolation filtering coefficients from a look-up table.
Instant Application
Patent ‘040
Claim 4: wherein a 4 tap filter is used for the subpixel interpolation filtering.
Claim 4: wherein a 4 tap filter is used for the subpixel interpolation filtering.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 12 have no prior-art rejection and are only rejected under double patenting. The filing of a terminal disclaimer would subsequently render the claims objectable as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2016/0330474 A1 (hereinafter Liu) – Discloses applying filters to both blocks predicted by inter prediction and intra prediction. See Liu, ¶ [0045].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM 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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights