`
`In an Office Action dated January 6, 2022, claims 1-12 were rejected. Herein, claims 1,
`
`3, 6, 8, 11, and 12 have been amended. No new matter has been added. Additionally, claims 2,
`
`4, 7, and 9 have been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer to the subject matter therein.
`
`Applicant respectfully requests further examination and reconsideration in view of the following
`
`remarks.
`
`Applicant wishes to thank Examiner Beckerfor the courtesies extended toward
`
`Applicant’s representative during the telephone interview conducted on March 31, 2022. During
`
`the interview, Applicant’s representative discussed whyit is believed that the presently claimed
`
`invention is allowable overthe prior art of record. It is noted that the arguments contained herein
`
`generally correspond to those made during the interview.
`
`L
`
`Support for Amendment
`
`Support for the amendmentsto the claims can be foundat least at steps $1002, $1003,
`
`$1005 illustrated in FIG. 50A, FIG. 51B, and the corresponding disclosure in the specification.
`
`Accordingly, no new matter has been added.
`
`I.
`
`Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
`
`Claims 1-12 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US
`
`2008/0304760) in view of Ikai (US 2016/0134869). Applicant respectfully requests
`
`reconsideration of the above-noted rejection in view ofthe following.
`
`Claim 1 recites the following features:
`
`whenthe size of the current block is larger than the determinedsize, (i) derives a second
`
`correction parameter using only portions of the neighboring reconstructed images that neighbor a
`
`leading processing unit includedin the current block, and (11) performs correction of the
`
`prediction image for the whole current block using the second correction parameter derived
`
`using only the portions of the neighboring reconstructed images, and
`
`wherein the leading processing unit is an upper-leftmost processing unit from among
`
`processing units obtained by splitting the current block into the processing units, each of the
`
`
`
`processing units having the determinedsize.
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that the above-noted features of claim 1 are not disclosed,
`
`suggested, or otherwise rendered obvious by any combination of Lee and Ikai based on the
`
`following.
`
`Onpage3 of the Office Action, the Examinerstates the following:
`
`“Lee discloses ... derives a correction parameter using only a neighboring
`reconstructed image that neighbors a processing unit which has a determined size
`and is located at an upper left of a current block to be processed in an image,
`among neighboring reconstructed images that neighbor the current block {Figs. 2,
`4; 0046-49; 0053).”
`
`Lee teaches determining a illumination compensation parameter for a current block based
`
`on predicted mean value ofthe pixels of the current block, predicted mean value ofthe pixels of
`
`a neighboring reference block, the pixels of the current block, and the pixels of the neighboring
`
`reference block.
`
`However, Applicant respectfully submits that Lee fails to teach the specific processing
`
`required by the above-noted features of claim 1, that is, Lee fails to teach “whenthe size of the
`
`current block is larger than the determinedsize, (1) derives a second correction parameter using
`
`only portions of the neighboring reconstructed images that neighbor a leading processing unit
`
`included in the current block, and (ii) performs correction of the prediction image for the whole
`
`current block using the second correction parameter derived using only the portions of the
`
`neighboring reconstructed images,” where “the leading processing unit is an upper-leftmost
`
`processing unit from among processing units obtained by splitting the current block into the
`
`processing units, each of the processing units having the determinedsize.”
`
`In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that any combination of Lee and
`
`Ikai fails to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the above-noted features of claim 1.
`
`Accordingly, claim 1 is patentable over any combination of Lee and Ikai.
`
`
`
`Tl.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully submits that
`
`claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10-12 are clearly in condition for allowance. An early notice thereofis
`
`eamestly solicited.
`
`If, after reviewing this Amendment, the Examinerbelieves that there are any issues
`
`remaining which must be resolved before the application can be passedto issue, it is respectfully
`
`requested that the Examiner contact the undersigned by telephonein order to resolve such issues.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/Stephen Kopchik/
`2022.04.06 09:24:56 -04'00'
`
`
`Stephen W. Kopchik
`Registration No. 61,215
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK,L.L.P.
`1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone (202) 721-8200
`Facsimile (202) 721-8250
`April 6, 2022
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge any fees which may be required, or credit any overpayment
`to Deposit Account No. 23-0975.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
