DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Responsive to the Office Action mailed June 8, 2026, claims 15, 23-25, 31, 33, and 34 are amended. Claims 15-18, 20-28, and 30-34 are now pending in this application. Support for the amendments can be found throughout the as filed specification, for example, in paragraphs [0122], [0142], and [0143]. No new matter has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 18, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 15, 17-19, 22, 25, 27-29, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al., US 20240107011 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Applicant has amended independent claims 15 and 25 to recite, among other things:
responsive to the determination, generate a blended prediction based on a plurality of intra prediction modes associated with the reference block using the TIMD mode or the DIMD mode;
generate a prediction block for the current video block using the blended prediction; and
Applicant argues, Park does not disclose "responsive to the determination, generat[ing] a blended prediction based on a plurality of intra prediction modes associated with the reference block using the TIMD mode or the DIMD mode," as recited in amended claims 15 and 25. Remarks, page 6.
More specifically Applicant argues, “Park derives the blended prediction from intra prediction modes collected from multiple neighboring blocks, rather than from a plurality of TIMD/DIMD-derived intra prediction modes associated with a reference block. Park does not blend a plurality of intra prediction modes associated with a single reference block, much less a plurality of such modes associated with the reference block using the TIMD mode or the DIMD mode… Consequently, Park also does not disclose "generat[ing] a prediction block for the current video block using the blended prediction," as recited in amended claims 15 and 25. Remarks, page 6-7.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Park discloses all claimed features recited in claims 15 and 25.
Park explicitly discloses “a determination may be made as to whether a neighboring block [i.e., reference block] at a specific position derives the intra prediction mode based on DIMD.” Park, ¶ [0161]; Fig. 16.
Park further discloses, a plurality of intra prediction modes associated with the reference block. Based on the Examiners broadest reasonable interpretation the nature of the association of the plurality of intra prediction modes with the reference block is not limited to a plurality of intra prediction modes of a single reference block, as implied in Applicants abovementioned remarks. In contrast, the claimed “a plurality of intra prediction modes associated with the reference block,” is interpreted to include frequently occurring intra prediction modes of other neighboring blocks (i.e., reference blocks) of the current block. As seen in Park Fig.10, each of the neighboring blocks and prediction modes (i.e., M1, M2, and M3) are associated with each other at least by virtue of their adjacent proximity to the current block.
Park Fig. 10, further discloses a final prediction block can be generated based on prediction modes of the neighboring blocks of the current block. ¶ [0146], Fig. 10.
For at least the abovementioned reasons Park discloses generating a blended prediction based on a plurality of intra prediction modes associated with the reference block using the TIMD mode or the DIMD mode; and generating a prediction block for the current video block using the blended prediction, as recited in independent claims 15 and 25.
Accordingly independent claims 15 and 25 are unpatentable over the cited references. Claims 16-24, and 26-34 depend on claims 15 and 25 respectively and are therefore unpatentable at least by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15, 17-19, 22, 25, 27-29, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al., US 20240107011 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding claim 15 (Currently amended), A video decoding device (Park: decoding method and a video encoding/decoding apparatus are provided. Abstract) comprising:
a processor (Park: methods or functions described in some embodiments may be implemented as instructions stored in a non-transitory recording medium that can be read and executed by one or more processors. ¶ [0175]) configured to:
determine, for a current video block, that a reference block associated with the current video block is fully or partially coded using a template-based intra-mode derivation (TIMD) mode or a decoder-side intra-mode derivation (DIMD) mode (Park: A determination may be made as to whether a neighboring block at a specific position derives the intra prediction mode based on DIMD. When neighboring blocks of the current block use the intra prediction mode derivation method, the current block is also highly likely to use the intra prediction mode derivation method. ¶¶ [0160]- [0161], Fig. 16. A histogram of the modes may be generated based on the intra prediction mode of the neighboring blocks adjacent to the current block. ¶ [0144], Fig. 10.
responsive to the determination, generate a blended prediction based on a plurality of intra prediction modes associated with the reference block using the TIMD or the DIMD mode (Park: FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a DIMD blend mode in which a weight value is assigned to a prediction value of an intra prediction mode of a neighboring block according to a DIMD index according to another embodiment of the present disclosure. ¶ [0140]. Prediction mode of the neighboring block of the current block. M1, M2, and M3 modes may be selected as the mode with the highest occurrence frequency in the histogram of the modes. Pred_M1, Pred_M2, and Pred_M3 which are prediction blocks for M1, M.2, and M3 modes can be generated. Weight values W1, W2, and W3 are assigned to Pred_M1, Pred_M2, and Pred_M3 and added so that a final prediction block F_Pred can be generated. ¶ [0146], Fig. 10); generate a prediction block for the current video block using the blended prediction (Park: a final prediction block can be generated based on prediction modes of neighboring blocks of the current blocks of the current block. ¶ [0146], Fig. 10); and decode the current video block based on the generated prediction block (Park: A final prediction block is generated. Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 17 (Previously Presented), Park discloses the video decoding device of claim 15, wherein the reference block is coded using the TIMD mode or the DIMD mode. (Park: DIMD usage frequency of neighboring block. ¶¶ [0160]- [0161], Fig. 16. FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a DIMD blend mode in which a weight value is assigned to a prediction value of an intra prediction mode of a neighboring block according to a DIMD index according to another embodiment of the present disclosure. ¶ [0140]).
Regarding claim 18 (Previously Presented), Park discloses the video decoding device of claim 15, wherein the plurality of intra prediction modes are TIMD modes or DIMD modes that are obtained from the TIMD mode or the DIMD mode of the reference block (Park: Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 19 (Previously Presented), Park discloses the video decoding device of claim 15, wherein the plurality of intra prediction modes are TIMD modes or DIMD modes that are derived from a current template using a TIMD process or a DIMD process (Park: Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 22 (Previously Presented), Park discloses the device of claim 15, wherein the processor configured to blend the plurality of intra prediction modes comprises the processor being configured to: reuse or derive the prediction block based on blending the plurality of intra prediction modes (Park: Figs. 3A, 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 23 (Currently amended), The device of claim 15, wherein the prediction block of the current video block is obtained based on one or more of the DIMD mode, the TIMD mode, a combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP) mode or a geometric partition mode (GPM) mode (Park: DIMD mode. Figs. 8, 10).
Regarding claim 25 (Currently Amended), claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 25. Therefore, claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 15.
Regarding claim 27 (Previously Presented), claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 26. Therefore, claim 27 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 17.
Regarding claim 28 (Previously Presented), claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 28. Therefore, claim 28 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 18.
Regarding claim 29 (Previously Presented), claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 29. Therefore, claim 29 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 19.
Regarding claim 32 (Previously Presented), claim 22 is substantially similar to claim 32. Therefore, claim 32 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 22.
Regarding claim 33 (Currently Amended), claim 23 is substantially similar to claim 30. Therefore, claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 23.
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:
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.
Claims 16, 24, 26 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Zhao et al., US 20240196008 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Zhao”).
Regarding claim 16 (Previously Presented), Park does not explicitly disclose the video decoding device of claim 15, wherein the reference block is referred by a most probable mode (MPM) index.
Park discloses a MPM list. An MPM index is not explicitly discussed.
However, Zhao discloses the reference block is referred by a most probable mode (MPM) index (Zhao: intra prediction mode applied to the current block may be determined using the intra prediction modes of neighboring blocks. For example, the coding apparatus may select one of MPM candidates in a most probable mode (MPM) list derived based on an intra prediction mode and/or additional candidate modes of a neighboring block (e.g., a left and/or upper neighboring block) of a current block, based on the received MPM index. MPM flag may be signaled first, and the MPM index and non-planar flag may be signaled when the value of the MPM flag is 1. ¶ [0145]).
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 teachings of Park wherein the reference block is referred by a most probable mode (MPM) index, as taught by Zhao, in order to significantly reduce the number of bits required to signal intra-prediction modes.
Regarding claim 24 (Currently Amended), Park does not disclose the device of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a multiple prediction mode (MPM) flag in video data indicating that the prediction block uses one or more of the following as the reference block: above left, above, above right, left, and below left; and decode the video block using the prediction block.
However, Zhao discloses receive a multiple prediction mode (MPM) flag in video data indicating that the prediction block uses one or more of the following as the reference block: above left, above, above right, left, and below left; and decode the current video block using the prediction block (Zhao: intra prediction mode applied to the current block may be determined using the intra prediction modes of neighboring blocks. For example, the coding apparatus may select one of MPM candidates in a most probable mode (MPM) list derived based on an intra prediction mode and/or additional candidate modes of a neighboring block (e.g., a left and/or upper neighboring block) of a current block, based on the received MPM index. MPM flag may be signaled first, and the MPM index and non-planar flag may be signaled when the value of the MPM flag is 1. ¶ [0145]).
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 teachings of Park with receive a multiple prediction mode (MPM) flag in video data indicating that the prediction block uses one or more of the following as the reference block: above left, above, above right, left, and below left; and decode the video block using the prediction block, as taught by Zhao, in order to in order to significantly reduce the number of bits required to signal intra-prediction modes.
Regarding claim 26 (Previously Presented), claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 26. Therefore, claim 26 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 16.
Regarding claim 34 (Currently Amended), claim 24 is substantially similar to claim 24. Therefore, claim 34 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 24.
Claims 20, 21, 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Yu et al., US 20260164024 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Yu”).
Regarding claim 20 (Previously Presented), Park does not disclose the video decoding device of claim 15, wherein the reference block is coded using an intra prediction mode associated with a combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP) or a geometric partition mode (GPM).
However, Yu discloses a reference block is coded using an intra prediction mode associated with a combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP) or a geometric partition mode (GPM). (Yu: one or more index-specified reference lines among a plurality of reference lines having a plurality of reconstructed samples spatially neighboring a block associated with a spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM). ¶ [0005]).
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 teachings of Park with wherein the reference block is coded using an intra prediction mode associated with a combined inter-intra prediction (CIIP) or a geometric partition mode (GPM), as taught by Yu, in order to improved compression efficiency and better visual quality, achieved by allowing a coding block to be split into two separate segments.
Regarding claim 21 (Previously Presented), Park does not disclose the video decoding device of claim 20, wherein the GPM comprises a spatial GPM (SGPM).
However, Yu discloses wherein the GPM comprises a spatial GPM (SGPM) (Yu: one or more index-specified reference lines among a plurality of reference lines having a plurality of reconstructed samples spatially neighboring a block associated with a spatial geometric partitioning mode (SGPM). ¶ [0005]).
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 teachings of Park wherein the GPM comprises a spatial GPM (SGPM), as taught by Yu, in order to improved compression efficiency and better visual quality, achieved by allowing a coding block to be split into two separate segments.
Regarding claim 30 (Previously Presented), claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 30. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 20.
Regarding claim 31 (Currently Amended), claim 30 is substantially similar to claim 30. Therefore, claim 30 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 21.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEIRDRE L BEASLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0452. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 a.m. -5 p.m.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/DLB/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
/CHRISTOPHER S KELLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482
