DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200404324 A1 (Pham)
US 20200252608 A1 (Ramasubramonian)
US 20200014947 A1 (hereinafter ABE)
US 20190313091 A1 (hereinafter Xu091)
US 20130215963 A1 (hereinafter Yie)
US 20210105499 A1 (para 406 & Fig.32 teaches prediction based on a weighted sum operation of the first prediction sample included in the first prediction block and the second prediction sample included in the second prediction block)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered.
Applicant amended independent claim 1 and argued that the new limitation is not taught by prior are. Examiner respectfully disagrees, Pham para 137 and 128 teaches this limitation. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to claim 34, while it is claimed that computer program is used it is not claimed that the data stored in the medium includes computer program. Therefore, no functional relationship exists.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 35-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 35 recites the limitation “the encoding method”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Assumed it is simply referring to claim 34. Claim 36 dependent upon claim 35 in addition recite the same.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ABE.
Regarding Claims 34-36: Claim 34’s recitation of “ a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium configured to store bitstream” is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. 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 the structure implied by the method steps). While it is claimed that computer program is used it is not claimed that the data stored in the medium includes computer program. Therefore, no functional relationship exists.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in the claim merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by ABE recites a storage medium storing a bitstream [(para 434, memory store bitstream, generated by processor implemented encoding method {para 155, 160})]
Applicant is advised to amend the claim in the form of “ A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer instructions, the instructions, when executed by the computer perform ……..”
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3, 8, 10, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham in view of Ramasubramonian.
Regarding claim 1. Pham teaches 1. A decoding method executed by a decoding apparatus [(para 31)] , comprising: determining a prediction mode for a coding block using a prediction mode flag [(para 137 “reg_intra_planar_flag”)] :and
performing prediction for the coding block using the determined prediction mode,
wherein the prediction mode flag indicates which one of a first prediction mode and a second prediction mode is used for the prediction for the coding block, [(for “reg_intra_planar_flag” value 1 {para 137})]
wherein the first prediction mode is performed for the prediction for the coding block in a case that a value of the prediction mode flag is equal to a first predetermined value, [(for “reg_intra_planar_flag” value 1 {para 137})]
wherein the second prediction mode is performed for the prediction for the coding block in a case that a value of the prediction mode flag is not equal to the first predetermined value, [(for “reg_intra_planar_flag” value 0 , it’s a flag therefore values “1” and “0”)]
wherein intra prediction using a planar mode is used for the prediction for the coding block in a case that the prediction mode flag indicates that the first prediction mode is used for the coding block [(for “reg_intra_planar_flag” value 1 {para 137})] ,
wherein partitioning information for the coding block is decoded from a bitstream in a case that the prediction mode flag indicates that the first prediction mode is not used for the coding block, [(When “reg_intra_planar_flag” value 1 , i.e. regular planar mode, then ISP (intra sub partition) information is not coded/decoded {para 142, 137}, otherwise )]
wherein the partitioning information for the coding block comprises first information, second information and third information [(para 142, 137)] ,
wherein the first information indicates whether the coding block is partitioned into a plurality of subblocks, [(ISP mode flag {para 143})]
wherein the third information indicates a direction of partitioning for the coding block in a case that the coding block is partitioned into the plurality of subblocks [(Pham para 92, vertical or horizontal direction split;)]
and wherein the prediction mode flag is decoded from the bitstream only in a case that it is determined that Matrix weighted Intra Prediction (MIP) is not used for the coding block [(para 137 and 128)]
Pham does not explicitly show wherein a size of a subblock of the coding block is determined by the second information in a case that the coding block is partitioned into the plurality of subblocks
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Ramasubramonian teaches wherein a size of a subblock of the coding block is determined by the second information in a case that the coding block is partitioned into the plurality of subblocks [(Ramasubramonian NumIntraSubPartitions is used to determine the subblock size)] , Ramasubramonian additionally teaches wherein the third information indicates a direction of partitioning for the coding block in a case that the coding block is partitioned into the plurality of subblocks [(; Ramasubramonian para 23; intra subpartition split flag indicates vertical or horizontal direction split)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Pham additionally teaches with respect to claim 3. The decoding method of claim 1, wherein the current block is a chroma component block. [(para 209)] .
Regarding Claims 8, 10, 31: Please see analysis of claims 1, 3 and note that Pham also describing the same w.r.t. encoding method in an encoder
Claims 24-27, 29, 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pham in view of Ramasubramonian in view of Yie.
Regarding Claims 24:Pham in view of Ramasubramonian does not explicitly show a predetermined size is used to determine whether each of prediction using the first prediction mode and prediction using the second prediction mode is available for the prediction for the coding block
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Yie teaches a predetermined size is used to determine whether each of prediction using the first prediction mode and prediction using the second prediction mode is available for the prediction for the coding block [(Yie para 71)]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Regarding Claims 25-27, 29, 32-33: See analysis of claim 24 and para 71 of Yie
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 extension fee 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 Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426