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 .
This office action is a response to an application filed on 03/02/2026, in which claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 18-20 are currently amended.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims rejected under 35 USC 102, 103, the Applicant argues, see Pg. 9, that Xiu does not teach “determining the chroma IPM … by adapting a mode index of the luma IPM to a predetermined IPM mode range corresponding to a chroma component” by asserting Xiu merely teaches in Para. [0100], a n IPM derivation for luma component.
Examiner cannot concur. The rejection is based on explicitly cited Para. [0102-105], the IPM mode of the chroma is derived by reusing the derived IPM mode from a predetermined set different IPM modes corresponding to the chroma component, wherein the predetermined set of mode is less when considering less details is required for chroma component, or he predetermined set of mode is more when considering additional LM for obtaining improvement by utilizing the correlation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiu (WO 2017192995 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xiu discloses a method for video processing, comprising (Xiu; Fig. 7-8, Para. [0103-105]. A video coding system/method is used.):
determining, during a conversion between a current chroma block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a chroma intra prediction mode (IPM) for the current chroma block based on a luma IPM for a collocated luma block of the current chroma block, the luma IPM being determined based on a decoder-side derivation of intra prediction mode (DDIPM) and a chroma derived mode (DM) is applied on the current chroma block (Xiu; Para. [0102-105]. A first intra prediction mode candidate is determined in accordance with whether a collocated luma block is coded with a decoder-side intra mode derivation or not. [0117], the luma IPM being determined in accordance with a decoder-side intra mode derivation and a chroma intra mode/DM is derived for a current chroma block.); and
performing the conversion based on the chroma IPM (Xiu; Para. [0103-105]. Video coding/conversion is performed in accordance with an intra prediction mode candidate list.),
wherein determining the chroma IPM based on the luma IPM comprises: obtaining the chroma IPM by adapting a mode index of the luma IPM to a predetermined IPM mode range, if a mode range of the luma IPM is different from the predetermined IPM mode range corresponding to a chroma component (Xiu; Para. [0102-105]. The IPM mode of the chroma is derived by reusing the derived IPM mode from a predetermined set different IPM modes corresponding to the chroma component, wherein the predetermined set of mode is less when considering less details is required for chroma component, or he predetermined set of mode is more when considering additional LM for obtaining improvement by utilizing the correlation. The correlation between chroma samples and luma samples is utilized to perform chroma sample coding by deriving a chroma intra prediction mode based on a set of candidates derived in accordance with collocated luma samples. A range refinement process is applied by adapting a mode/mode index to a predetermined IPM mode range of a relatively small range for a mode range of a full/conventional range is different from a predetermined IPM mode range of a relatively small range. A target chroma intra prediction mode is determined by determining an intra prediction mode index to a mode range, if a mode range is the same or not, also see Para. [0100].).
Regarding claim 2, Xiu discloses if a DDIPM is applied on the current chroma block, the method further comprises: determining a set of candidate intra prediction modes (IPMs) for the current chroma block (Xiu; Para. [0102-105]. A decoder-side intra mode derivation is used, wherein a set of candidate modes is determined for a current chroma block.);
constructing an IPM candidate list for the current chroma block based on the set of candidate IPMs, wherein constructing the IPM candidate list comprises: updating the IPM candidate list by adding a first candidate IPM of the set of candidate IPMs into the IPM candidate list (Xiu; Para. [0103]. An intra prediction mode candidate list is updated by adding a first intra prediction mode candidate into a candidate list.).
Regarding claim 3, Xiu discloses wherein the first candidate IPM is added before or after a target IPM in the IPM candidate list, and the target IPM is one of the following: a cross-component linear model (CCLM) mode, a multi-model linear model (MMLM) mode, a chroma derived mode (DM), or a pre-defined IPM (Xiu; Para. [0103-105]. A first intra prediction mode candidate is added before or after a target intra prediction mode, which is one of at least a cross-component LM, a DM, or a predefined intra prediction mode, also see Para. [0117].).
Regarding claim 4, Xiu discloses wherein whether a target chroma block of the video is coded with the DDIPM is determined based on at least one of: whether DDIPM is allowed for a collocated luma block of the target chroma block, block dimensions, a block size, a block depth, a slice type, a picture type, a partition tree type, a block location, or a color component, or wherein a first set of syntax elements are indicated in the bitstream, the first set of syntax elements indicating whether a target chroma block of the video is coded with the DDIPM (Xiu; Para. [103-105]. A target chroma block is coded using a decoder-side intra mode derivation or not is in accordance with at least one of whether decoder-side derivation is used for a collocated luma block or not, a block size, a color component, or a set of syntax elements, also see Para. [0109] or [0084].).
Regarding claim 5, Xiu discloses wherein whether chroma components of the target chroma block are coded with the DDIPM is indicated in the bitstream by one syntax element of the first set of syntax elements, or whether the chroma components of the target chroma block are coded with the DDIPM is indicated in the bitstream by a plurality of syntax elements of the first set of syntax elements, or wherein the first set of syntax elements are coded as a flag, or the first set of syntax elements are binarized with one of the following: fixed length coding, truncated unary coding, unary coding, or exponential Golomb (EG) coding, or wherein the first set of syntax elements are bypass coded or context coded, or wherein the first set of syntax elements are indicated in the bitstream before or after one of: an indication of color space conversion, an indication of CCLM, an indication of MMLM, an indication of a planar mode, an indication of a DC mode, an indication of a horizontal mode, an indication of a vertical mode, an indication of a vertical diagonal mode, or an indication of chroma DM, or wherein whether the target chroma block is allowed to be coded with the DDIPM is dependent on a second set of syntax elements (Xiu; Para. [103-105]. A chroma block component is coded using a decoder-side intra mode derivation or not is in accordance with at least one of a first set of syntax elements as a flag, also see Para. [0084].).
Regarding claim 6, Xiu discloses wherein whether the chroma components are coded with the DDIPM is dependent on the one syntax element, or whether the chroma components are coded with the DDIPM is dependent on the plurality of syntax elements respectively (Xiu; Para. [103-105]. Chroma block components are coded using a decoder-side intra mode derivation or not is in accordance with at least one of a first set of syntax elements as a flag, also see Para. [0084].).
Regarding claim 8, Xiu discloses wherein the DDIPM comprises a template-based intra mode derivation (TIMD) with fusion, and the method further comprises: determining whether to code the collocated luma block by using the TIMD with fusion based on a cost factor dependent on coding information of the collocated luma block (Xiu; Para. [0103-105]. A first intra prediction mode candidate is determined in accordance with whether a collocated luma block is coded with a decoder-side intra mode derivation or not. [0117].).
Regarding claim 15, Xiu discloses wherein the method is applied to the DDIPM (Xiu; Para. [0103-105]. A video coding method is applied to a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DDIPM), whereon a first intra prediction mode candidate is determined in accordance with whether a collocated luma block is coded with a decoder-side intra mode derivation or not. [0117].).
Regarding claim 16, Xiu discloses wherein in the DDIPM, an intra prediction mode is derived for a block of the video based on coded samples of the video and a syntax element indicating an index of the intra prediction mode in the IPM candidate list is omitted from the bitstream (Xiu; Para. [0073, 77]. For decoder-side intra mode derivation (DDIPM), an intra mode is determined based on coded samples of video without need a syntax element indicating an index of the intra prediction mode in the intra prediction mode candidate list.).
Regarding claim 17, Xiu discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the current chroma block into the bitstream, or the conversion includes decoding the current chroma block from the bitstream (Xiu; Para. [0018]. Conversion includes encoding chroma blocks into and from a bitstream.).
Claim 18 is directed to an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises a sequence of processing steps corresponding to the same as claimed in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu (WO 2017192995 A1) in view of Cao (US Pub. 20220394269 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Xiu discloses the collocated luma block (Xiu; See remarks regarding claim 4 above.).
But it does not specifically disclose wherein the collocated luma block is coded by using the TIMD with fusion, and the method further comprises: determining a final prediction for the collocated luma block by weighting a first set of candidate predictions for the collocated luma block, the first set of candidate predictions being generated based on a second set of IPMs for the collocated luma block and a sum of weights used for the weighting being equal to a third predetermined value.
However, Cao teaches wherein the collocated luma block is coded by using the TIMD with fusion, and the method further comprises: determining a final prediction for the collocated luma block by weighting a first set of candidate predictions for the collocated luma block, the first set of candidate predictions being generated based on a second set of IPMs for the collocated luma block and a sum of weights used for the weighting being equal to a third predetermined value (Cao; Para. [0107-108]. A collocated luma is coded by using TIMD in a fusion process, wherein a final prediction is determined by summing weighted predictions of different intra prediction modes, and wherein weights sum to a predetermined value.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the pertinent before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the video coding system of Xiu to adapt an intra prediction mode process, by incorporating Cao’s teaching wherein TIMD with a fusion is employed for intra prediction, for the motivation to perform intra prediction using template-based derivation with fusion (Cao; Abstract.).
A1
Regarding claim 12, modified Xiu furth teaches wherein the weights are determined based on a look-up table or a set of equations (Cao; Para. [0107-108]. Weights are determined in accordance with conversion equations.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 13-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (US Pub. 20230217026 A1) teaches a video coding system that performs fusion of video prediction modes.
Chang (US Pub. 20230336716 A1) teaches a video coding system that uses intra chroma mode list construction for video coding.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 ALBERT KIR whose telephone number is (571)272-6245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/ALBERT KIR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights