DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 14 OCTOBER 2025.
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 Statement (IDS) submitted on 10/14/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --METHOD AND RECORDING MEDIUM FOR IMAGE ENCODING AND DECODING WITH TEMPLATE MATCHING--.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 12, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6, 12, and 19 state, “a reference sample to right of a block” and should --a reference sample right of a block--.
Claims 6, 12, and 19 uses the language “a block” and “the block” and to avoid confusion with other blocks (i.e., prediction block or target block), it is recommended to instead use “a neighboring block” and “the neighboring block.”
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 14-19 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.
With regard to claim 14, it is unclear whether the limitations “a block vector…” and “a prediction block…” are meant to be method steps for determining the bitstream or data that is additionally stored in the bitstream. Neither the block vector nor the prediction block are described as being part of the bitstream. The specification suggests the block vector and the prediction block is a part of “prediction mode information.” Therefore, the two limitations are interpreted as being steps for generating the bitstream. For examination purposes, the “block vector…” and the “prediction block…” derivation limitations are interpreted as steps for generating the bitstream. In view of the interpretation, the claim recites a product-by-process claim. See MPEP § 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) derivation steps for predicting a single block, which can be performed in the human mind, and thus is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional elements to consider. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no additional elements to consider. Independent claims 1 and 7 each recite only two limitations, “deriving a block vector […]” and “deriving a prediction block […].” The dependent claims further define the step of the “deriving a prediction block […];” therefore, there are no additional considerations for which either to integrate into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2026/0156243 A1 (hereinafter “Huo”).
Regarding claim 1, Huo discloses an image decoding method ([0007], “a decoding method”), comprising:
deriving a block vector ([0008], “determining a first template corresponding to current block.” [0009], “determining, according to the template, one or more block vectors corresponding to the current block”); and
deriving a prediction block for a target block by performing prediction based on the block vector ([0010], “determining one or more reference blocks of the current block according to the one or more block vectors, and determining predicted values of the current block according to the one or more reference blocks.” [0011], “determining a reconstructed value of the current block according to the predicted value of the current block”).
Regarding claim 2, Huo discloses every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Huo discloses wherein the prediction is template matching prediction ([0008], “determining a first template corresponding to current block.” [0067], “Intra Template Matching Prediction (Intra TMP)”).
Regarding claim 3, Huo discloses every limitation of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Huo discloses wherein a shape of a template in the template matching prediction is configured based on a comparison between the target block and a neighboring block of the target block ([0070], “In the Intra TMP, both an encoder and a decoder search a predefined search range of a current picture for a matching template (T_BEST) with the smallest cost according to a preset cost function, for a template (T) of a coding block.” Note, the cost function for determining the smallest cost is the comparison for finding the template that best matches the template shape of the current block. FIG. 3 depicts the 6 different shapes for template matching).
Regarding claim 6, Huo discloses every limitation of claim 2, as outlined above. Additionally, Huo discloses wherein the prediction block is generated using a reference sample to right of a block that is matched by template matching, or a reference sample below the block (FIG. 3, refTemplateType 5 and 6 disclose templates that extend below the block and to the right of the block, respectively. FIG. 6 describes the search area for template matching, including areas to the right and below the current block, which are further exemplified in FIGS. 7 and 8. Note, the “reference sample” could be either the samples within the template of the current block or the template in the neighboring block, since both are used to eventually generate the prediction block).
Regarding claim 7, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1; however, written from the perspective of the encoder instead of the decoder, which represents the same steps in a forward operation. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations are the same as those in claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 2 applies equally as well to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations are the same as those in claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 3 applies equally as well to claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations are the same as those in claim 6. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Huo discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream generated by the image encoding method […] (The claim recites a product-by-process and the broadest reasonable interpretation is limited to the product (i.e., a bitstream that is stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) as there is no structure implied by the recited steps of the method. MPEP § 2113 recites, “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with any structure implied by the method steps). Additionally, MPEP § 2111.05(I)(A) recites, “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a function relationship. A functional relationship can be found when the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated.” The storage medium storing the bitstream merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the recording medium. MPEP § 2111.05(III) recites, when a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists.” Therefore, the bitstream structure, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional material and given no patentable weight. Thus, the claim scope is limited to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing a bitstream and is anticipated by Huo at [0895], “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream”).
Regarding claim 14, Huo discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a bitstream for image decoding, wherein […] (The claim recites a product-by-process and the broadest reasonable interpretation is limited to the product (i.e., a bitstream that is stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) as there is no structure implied by the recited steps of the method. MPEP § 2113 recites, “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.” Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with any structure implied by the method steps). Additionally, MPEP § 2111.05(I)(A) recites, “To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a function relationship. A functional relationship can be found when the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated.” The storage medium storing the bitstream merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and the recording medium. MPEP § 2111.05(III) recites, when a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists.” Therefore, the bitstream structure, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional material and given no patentable weight. Thus, the claim scope is limited to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for storing a bitstream and is anticipated by Huo at [0895], “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream”).
Regarding claims 15-19, the same analysis of claim 14 applies.
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) 4, 5, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2026/0156243 A1 (hereinafter “Huo”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0267533 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 4, Huo discloses every limitation of claim 2, as outlined above. Huo fails to expressly disclose wherein template matching cost is derived by applying weights to error costs of pixels in a template in the template matching prediction.
However, Zhang teaches wherein template matching cost is derived by applying weights to error costs of pixels in a template in the template matching prediction ([0729], “In one example, the template matching cost measure may be the weighted SAD/weighted MR-SAD/selectively weighted MR-SAD and SAD/weighted SATD/weighted MR-SATD/selectively weighted MR-SATD and SATD/weighted SSD/weighted MR-SSD/selectively weighted MR-SSD and SSD between the current and reference templates.” [0730], “i. In one example, the weighted means applying different weights to each sample based on its row and column indices in template block when calculating the distortion between the current and reference templates.” [0731], “ii. In one example, the weighted means applying different weights to each sample based on its positions in template block when calculating the distortion between the current and reference templates.” [0732], “iii. In one example, the weighted means applying different weights to each sample based on its distances to current block when calculating the distortion between the current and reference templates”).
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 applied weights in the cost function for the template matching cost, as taught by Zhang ([0729-0732]), in Huo’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Huo’s invention, by incorporating Zhang’s invention, to improve coding quality and coding efficiency (Zhang: [0004]).
Regarding claim 5, Huo and Zhang disclose every limitation of claim 4, as outlined above. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein the weights for the pixels in the template are determined in units of a line, a pixel or a block ([0729], “In one example, the template matching cost measure may be the weighted SAD/weighted MR-SAD/selectively weighted MR-SAD and SAD/weighted SATD/weighted MR-SATD/selectively weighted MR-SATD and SATD/weighted SSD/weighted MR-SSD/selectively weighted MR-SSD and SSD between the current and reference templates.” [0730], “i. In one example, the weighted means applying different weights to each sample based on its row and column indices in template block when calculating the distortion between the current and reference templates.” [0731], “ii. In one example, the weighted means applying different weights to each sample based on its positions in template block when calculating the distortion between the current and reference templates.” [0732], “iii. In one example, the weighted means applying different weights to each sample based on its distances to current block when calculating the distortion between the current and reference templates”). The same motivation of claim 4 applies to claim 5.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations are the same as those in claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 4 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations are the same as those in claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 5 applies equally as well to claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2026/0025516 A1 – Discloses comparing matching costs of multiple candidate templates in a template set and adjusting the matching costs to ultimately select a matching template. See [0374].
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 at 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
