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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/15/2026 has been entered.
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200404324 A1 (Pham)
US 20200252608 A1 (Ramasubramonian)
US 20210076028 A1 (Heo)
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
Rejection made to claims 34-36 are moot as these claims has been canceled.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to other claims are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection
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 in view of Heo.
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 enhance communication/synchronization between encoder and decoder.
Pham in view of Ramasubramonian does not explicitly show wherein Most Probable Mode (MPM) information for the coding block which indicates whether an MPM mode is used for the coding block is decoded from the bitstream only in a case that a value of Multiple Reference Lines (MRL) information for the coding block is equal to 0 regardless of whether the coding block is partitioned into the plurality of subblocks based on the first information.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Heo teaches wherein Most Probable Mode (MPM) information for the coding block which indicates whether an MPM mode is used for the coding block is decoded from the bitstream only in a case that a value of Multiple Reference Lines (MRL) information for the coding block is equal to 0 regardless of whether the coding block is partitioned into the plurality of subblocks based on the first information. [(para 190 signaling of MPM flag is unnecessary for MRL or ISP prediction mode. Para 186 indicate if a mode such as ISP is not applied it’s value is 0. Para 136 MRL index 0, indicates conventional first line is used, index greater than 0 indicates other than conventional, i.e. multiple reference line is used. Para 188 and 187 indicates for ISP mode MPM flag is decoded only when ISP mode information is 0. Therefore, from the above discussion it is obvious that MPM flag does not need to be signaled or decoded when MRL information is 0. Also this decision is not dependent upon subblock partitioning )]
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 to improve coding efficiency by dropping information intelligently.
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 Heo in view of Yie.
Regarding Claims 24:Pham in view of Ramasubramonian in view of Heo 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
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
Prosecution Insights