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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 09/30/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 1, 22, 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Panusopone et al. (herein after will be referred to as Panusopone) (US 20180184110).
Regarding claim 1, Panusopone discloses a method of video decoding, comprising:
obtaining a vertical predictor and a horizontal predictor for a sample in an intra block; [See Panusopone [0003] Horizontal and vertical predictor for a pixel in a current coding block.]
obtaining a weighted average of said vertical predictor and said horizontal predictor to form a predictor for said sample, wherein a first weight for said vertical predictor is different from a second weight for said horizontal predictor when forming said weighted average; and [See Panusopone [0003] A final planar prediction value is calculated using unequal weights applied to each of the first and second predictors.]
decoding said sample based on said predictor for said sample. [See Panusopone [Fig. 6] Decoder with intra prediction (622).]
Regarding claim 22, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 22.
Regarding claim 28, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 28.
Regarding claim 31, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panusopone (US 20180184110) in view of Fillipov et al. (herein after will be referred to as Fillipov) (US 20220124368).
Regarding claim 7, Panusopone discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Panusopone does not explicitly disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on a width and a height of said intra block.
However, Fillipov does disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on a width and a height of said intra block. [See Fillipov [Abstract] Determining a vertical weighting factor and a horizontal weighting factor based on height/width of block.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Panusopone to add the teachings of Fillipov, in order to improve upon problems associated with video compression [See Filippov [0003-0004]].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panusopone (US 20180184110) in view of Fillipov (US 20220124368) and in further view of Ramasubramonian et al. (herein after will be referred to as Ramasubramonian) (US 20200359037).
Regarding claim 8, Panusopone (modified by Fillipov) disclose the method of claim 7. Furthermore, Panusopone does not explicitly disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on an aspect ratio of said intra block.
However, Ramasubramonian does disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on an aspect ratio of said intra block. [See Ramasubramonian [0213] PDPC weights depend on characteristics such as aspect ratio.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Panusopone (modified by Fillipov) to add the teachings of Ramasubramonian, in order to improve upon intra prediction [See Ramasubramonian [0005]].
Claims 9-10, 23-24, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panusopone (US 20180184110) in view of Lim et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lim) (US 20200413069).
Regarding claim 9, Panusopone discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Panusopone does not explicitly disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on values of top reference samples and left reference samples.
However, Lim does disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on values of top reference samples and left reference samples. [See Lim [0477] The weights are determined according to the sample values of the neighboring blocks. Also, see 0475.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Panusopone to add the teachings of Lim, in order to enhance compression efficiency [See Lim [0005]].
Regarding claim 10, Panusopone discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Panusopone does not explicitly disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on a difference between (1) a linear interpolation of a top-left reference sample and a top-right reference sample and (2) a linear interpolation of said top-left reference sample and a bottom-left reference sample.
However, Lim does disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on a difference between (1) a linear interpolation of a top-left reference sample and a top-right reference sample and (2) a linear interpolation of said top-left reference sample and a bottom-left reference sample. [See Lim [0478] Difference between the TL reference sample value and TR reference sample value, and the difference between the TL reference sample value and BL reference sample…weights are applied. Also, see 0469 & 0472, Interpolation method for generating horizontal/vertical prediction blocks.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 9.
Regarding claim 23, see examiners rejection for claim 9 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 23.
Regarding claim 24, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 24.
Regarding claim 29, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 29.
Regarding claim 32, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 32.
Claims 11, 25, 30 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panusopone (US 20180184110) in view of Lee (US 20200145648).
Regarding claim 11, Panusopone discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Panusopone does not explicitly disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on the availability of the decoded neighbor blocks on the left and on the top of the current intra block.
However, Lee does disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on the availability of the decoded neighbor blocks on the left and on the top of the current intra block. [See Lee [0262] The weights are determined based on availability of a reference samples.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Panusopone to add the teachings of Lee, in order to improve upon efficiency of intra prediction [See Lee [0005]].
Regarding claim 25, see examiners rejection for claim 11 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 25.
Regarding claim 30, see examiners rejection for claim 11 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 30.
Regarding claim 33, see examiners rejection for claim 11 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 33.
Claims 12 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panusopone (US 20180184110) in view of Ramasubramonian (US 20200359037).
Regarding claim 12, Panusopone (modified by Fillipov) disclose the method of claim 7. Furthermore, Panusopone does not explicitly disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on an aspect ratio of said intra block.
However, Ramasubramonian does disclose
wherein said first and second weights are based on an aspect ratio of said intra block. [See Ramasubramonian [0213] PDPC weights depend on characteristics such as aspect ratio.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Panusopone) to add the teachings of Ramasubramonian, in order to improve upon intra prediction [See Ramasubramonian [0005]].
Regarding claim 26, see examiners rejection for claim 12 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 26.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 27 are objected to 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights