REMARKS
`
`This Amendment is fully responsive to the non-final Office Action dated March 14,
`
`2019, issued in connection with the above-identified application. Claims 3, 5, 10, 12 and 15-17
`
`are pending in the present application. The fee for a one-month extension of time is included.
`
`With this Amendment, claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 15 and 16 have been amended. No new matter has
`
`been introduced by the amendments made to the claims. Favorable reconsideration is
`
`respectfully requested.
`
`In the Office Action, claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious over Suzuki et al. (US 2007/0291131, hereafter “Suzuki”) in view of Koto et al. (US
`
`2003/0215014, hereafter “Koto”) and newly cited Nakagami et al. (US 2011/0293195, hereafter
`
`“Nakagami”), and claims 5, 12, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`obvious in view of Suzuki, Koto and Chen (US 2009/0116558, hereafter “Chen”) in view
`
`Nakagami.
`
`The Applicant has amended independent claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 16 in order to
`
`clearly distinguish the claims from the cited prior art. For example, independent claim 3 recites
`
`the following features:
`
`“An image coding method for coding, using inter prediction, a current block included in a
`
`current picture, the image coding method comprising:
`
`adding, into header data, a prediction direction fixing information indicating that a
`
`prediction direction for coding all blocks using inter prediction in the entire current picture in a
`
`predetermined coding mode is fixed to one of a uni-prediction and a bi-prediction,
`
`coding, using the bi-prediction, all the blocks coded using inter prediction when the
`
`prediction direction fixing information indicates that the prediction is fixed to the bi-prediction,
`
`and
`
`coding the entire current picture in the predetermined coding mode, based on the
`
`prediction direction fixing information,
`
`wherein the predetermined coding mode is a direct mode in which a motion vector of the
`
`current block is predicted from a motion vector used for a coded neighboring block,
`
`when a prediction direction fixing flag is ON in the direct mode, the prediction direction
`
`is set to bi-directional prediction in which two or more reference pictures are referred, and
`
`

`

`when the prediction direction fixing flag is OFF in the direct mode, a selection is made
`
`the bi-directionalbetween one of i rediction for codin with rediction and ii uni-directional
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`reference to one reference picture as the prediction direction of the current block, and a
`
`prediction direction flag indicating the selected prediction direction is added into a bitstream.”
`
`(Emphasis added).
`
`The features emphasized above in independent claim 3 are similarly recited in
`
`independent claims 5, 10, 12, 15, and 16 (as amended).
`
`The Applicant asserts that the features of claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 16 are believed to
`
`be distinguished from the cited prior art at least with regard to reciting that the predetermined
`
`coding or decoding mode is a direct mode in which a motion vector of the current block is
`
`predicted from a motion vector used for a coded neighboring block.
`
`Additionally, when a prediction direction fixing flag is ON in the direct mode, the
`
`prediction direction is set to bi-directional prediction in which two or more reference pictures are
`
`referred, and when the prediction direction fixing flag is OFF in the direct mode, a selection is
`
`made between one of (i) the bi-directional prediction and (ii) uni-directional prediction for
`
`coding with reference to one reference picture as the prediction direction of the current block,
`
`and a prediction direction flag indicating the selected prediction direction is added into a
`
`bitstream.
`
`In the Office Action, the Examiner states the following:
`
`it wouiii be abilities. to me with ordinary skill in the art to combines the images rude: mode
`
`contra! 6i Suzuki with the motion vector encoding oi Kata with me image processing oi
`
`Nakagami which evaluates the identification flag hat a prediction type. The benefit this provides
`
`is a cantmiied interred prediction in two directions can be considered in the same time as
`
`prediction in traditionai unidirectionai m hidirectinnai prediction, giving more prediction time“:
`
`choices.
`
`The Examiner alleges that paragraphs [0123], [0152], [0173], [0174], [0176], and [0177]
`
`of Nakagami in view of paragraphs [0132] and [0136] of Suzuki, which discloses or suggests
`
`that the prediction direction is fixed to the uni-directional prediction in units of pictures, renders
`
`obvious the features emphasized above in independent claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 16 (see pages
`
`6-7 of the Office Action).
`
`

`

`However, Nakagami in paragraph [0123] discloses that a motion vector may be
`
`performed not in units of macroblocks of 16 X 16 pixels but in units of blocks obtained by
`
`further dividing the macroblocks.
`
`Nakagami in paragraph [0152] discloses that, in the filtering prediction mode, an image
`
`that is obtained by adding an image representing a high-frequency component to the motion
`
`compensation image is generated as a prediction image. As described in Nakagami, the
`
`prediction image includes a larger amount of high-frequency component than a prediction image
`
`that is obtained by performing bidirectional prediction.
`
`Nakagami in paragraph [0173] discloses that if it is judged that an identification fiag
`
`represents that a process is to be performed in the filtering prediction mode, the prediction circuit
`
`44 performs an extraction process of extracting motion compensation images.
`
`Nakagami in paragraph [0174] discloses that after motion compensation images have
`
`been extracted, the filtering circuit 45 performs a filtering prediction process.
`
`Nakagami in paragraph [0176] discloses that if it is judged that the identification fiag
`
`does not represent that a process is to be performed in the filtering prediction mode,
`
`unidirectional prediction or bidirectional prediction is performed and a prediction image is
`
`generated.
`
`Nakagami in paragraph [0177] discloses that if the identification fiag represents that a
`
`process is to be performed in the unidirectional prediction mode, a motion vector is supplied
`
`from the prediction mode determination circuit 41 to the unidirectional prediction circuit 42, and
`
`unidirectional prediction is performed. Also, if the identification fiag represents that a process is
`
`to be performed in the bidirectional prediction mode, a motion vector is supplied from the
`
`prediction mode determination circuit 41 to the bidirectional prediction circuit 43, and
`
`bidirectional prediction is performed.
`
`The Applicant asserts that it is not clear what language in particular the Examiner relies
`
`on in Nakagami for rejecting the claims of the present application.
`
`Regardless, based on a review ofNakagami (e.g., [0123], [0152], [0173], [0174], [0176],
`
`and [0177]), the Applicant asserts that the reference discloses or suggests that in order to reduce
`
`the coding amount of a motion vector used in bi-directional prediction, a motion compensated
`
`image is generated from one reference picture using a motion vector. Additionally, a part of
`
`

`

`another reference picture, which resembles the motion compensated image, is searched for as
`
`another motion compensated image.
`
`The Applicant asserts that Nakagami (e.g., [0123], [0152], [0173], [0174], [0176], and
`
`[0177]) also discloses or suggests that it is determined based on an identification fiag included in
`
`the header whether a predictive image is to be generated by uni-directional prediction or bi-
`
`directional prediction.
`
`Additionally, Suzuki in paragraph [0132] discloses that if a difference from a macroblock
`
`of a frame referred to in a forward direction is small at the time coding is performed on a
`
`macroblock (i.e., coded by a “not_coded” flag) in a backward direction, then the coding is
`
`performed using the “not_coded” fiag. On the other hand, if the difference is large, then
`
`difference data is coded. As described in Suzuki, a flag (i.e., “a decision flag”), which indicates
`
`whether the macroblock of a frame referred to in a forward direction is used as a copy or the
`
`difference data from the reference frame are decoded, is inserted to the coded data sequence.
`
`Suzuki in paragraph [0136] discloses that a decision fiag appending circuit 242 acquires a
`
`result by a coding method decision circuit 240, and appends a decision flag to a prescribed
`
`position of a coded data stream.
`
`Based on a review of the combination of Nakagami and Suzuki, the Applicant asserts that
`
`the combination fails to disclose or suggest fixing a prediction direction to a bi-directional
`
`prediction in units of pictures in a direct mode in which a motion vector of a current block is
`
`predicted from a motion vector used for a coded neighboring block, as recited in independent
`
`claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 16 (as amended). A direct mode is completely different from a mode
`
`in which a global motion vector is used.
`
`Additionally, the Applicant asserts that the combination of Nakagami and Suzuki fails to
`
`disclose or suggest that when a prediction direction fixing flag is ON in the direct mode, the
`
`prediction direction is set to bi-directional prediction in which two or more reference pictures are
`
`referred, and when the prediction direction fixing flag is OFF in the direct mode, a selection is
`
`made between one of (i) the bi-directional prediction and (ii) uni-directional prediction for
`
`coding with reference to one reference picture as the prediction direction of the current block,
`
`and a prediction direction fiag indicating the selected prediction direction is added into a
`
`bitstream, as recited in independent claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 16 (as amended).
`
`10
`
`

`

`For at least the reasons noted above, no combination of Suzuki, Koto, and Nakagami, or
`
`combination of Suzuki, Koto and Chen, and Nakagami would result in, or otherwise render
`
`obvious, the features of independent claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, and 16 (as amended).
`
`In the Office Action, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over
`
`Suzuki in view of Koto, Nakagami and Kim et al. (US 5,737,019, hereafter “Kim”).
`
`Claim 17 depends from independent claim 3. As noted above, the combination of
`
`Suzuki, Koto, and Nakagami fails to disclose or suggest all the features recited in independent
`
`claim 3. Moreover, Kim fails to overcome the deficiencies noted above in the combination of
`
`Suzuki, Koto, and Nakagami . Accordingly, no combination of Suzuki, Koto, and Nakagami
`
`with Kim would result in, or otherwise render obvious, all the features recited in claim 17 by
`
`virtue of its dependency from independent claim 3.
`
`In light of the above, the Applicant submits that all the pending claims are patentable
`
`over the prior art of record. The Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw the
`
`rejections presented in the outstanding Office Action and pass the present application to issue.
`
`The Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned attorney by telephone in order to resolve any
`
`issues remaining in the application.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Mark D. Pratt/
`
`2019.07.15 09:57:12 -O4'OOI
`Mark D. Pratt
`
`Registration No. 45,794
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
`
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, DC. 20036
`Telephone (202) 721-8200
`Facsimile (202) 721-8250
`July 15, 2019
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge any fees which may be required, or credit any overpayment
`to Deposit Account No. 23-09 75.
`
`11
`
`