DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 11/25/2025 in which claim 7 is cancelled, claims 1, 5, 6, and 18–20 are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
On pages 15–20 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the cited prior art of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross fails to teach or suggest the last limitation of independent claim 1, drawn to inferring IBC mode when the block is coded in skip mode, when the block is a certain size, and when the block is coded in intra mode. Applicant is correct to present arguments against Bross, as Bross is the most relevant reference for the averred feature. Remarks, 18–20. Applicant contends Bross “only includes cu_skip_flag equal to 1 and cbWidth and cbHeight being equal to 4,” as conditions for inferring IBC mode is applied and is silent regarding the mode type being INTRA. Examiner disagrees that Bross lacks teaching the constraint that mode type must be MODE_TYPE_INTRA. As explained in the rejection, infra, while it is true that Bross’s Section 7.4.9.5 teaches a first inquiry that asks whether the block is skipped and whether the block width and height are 4, and if so then infers the pred_mode_ibc_flag as equal to 1 (i.e. true), Bross’s Section 7.4.9.5 also teaches a third inquiry that asks whether the block is MODE_TYPE_INTER (which reciprocally also means asking whether the block is MODE_TYPE_INTRA), and if the prediction mode is INTER then infers the pred_mode_ibc_flag as equal to 0 (i.e. false). Therefore, Bross teaches that mode type must be INTRA, otherwise IBC is inferred to be disabled. Bross’s Section 7.4.9.5 and the description of pred_mode_flag explains that a value of 0 = inter and a value of 1 = intra. Examiner notes MODE_TYPE_ALL means we don’t yet know what the coding mode is. Bross’s Section 7.3.8.5 explains that if modeType is MODE_TYPE_ALL, that gets fixed by decoding the pred_mode_flag. In other words, at the time pred_mode_ibc_flag is determined, there is no possibility of MODE_TYPE_ALL. Therefore, because Bross teaches that the mode must not be MODE_TYPE_INTER for IBC mode to be inferred as enabled, Bross also teaches the opposite logic that mode type must be MODE_TYPE_INTRA for IBC mode to be inferred as enabled, as MODE_TYPE_INTRA is the only other possibility at that stage of the coding algorithm. For the foregoing reasons, Examiner is unpersuaded of patentability under 35 U.S.C.103.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendments to claim 20, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn. Remarks, 13.
On page 15 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Rosewarne and Lim and Tsai fail to teach an I-slice and 4:2:0 color format. Examiner disagrees. As explained in the rejection, infra, section 6.4.2 of Bross links the 4:2:0 color format with I-slices and whether chroma can be further split. Specifically, Bross, top of pg. 38 demonstrates that the ChromaArrayType != 0 means the qtbtt_dual_tree_intra_flag is decoded. Then, Bross, pg. 51 demonstrates that slice_type == I and qtbtt_dual_tree_intra_flag being true means that further information about the split structure of chroma is determined. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s argument, Bross does link the scenario in which the 4:2:0 color format is used and the slice is an I-slice for further determining chroma split structure and constraints as claimed. However, Examiner notes that such a failing of Bross, even if true, is not dispositive. Instead, the prior art teaches that the combination of an intra coding mode and small block sizes is less desirable, and the rationale for the rejections, infra, have explained that 4:2:0 color format means the chroma blocks are half the size of luma blocks and so when intra and 4:2:0 are present together, the skilled artisan would find it advantageous to control chroma splitting such that chroma blocks do not fall below a minimum size. See rejections, infra. Therefore, because Applicant’s argument misapprehends the teachings of Bross and because the argument is otherwise not dispositive, Applicant’s argument regarding the supposed failings of Rosewarne, Lim, and Tsai, to the exclusion of the teachings of Bross, is not persuasive of patentability. Accordingly, the rejections are sustained.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 14.
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 of this title, 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 1–6 and 8–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US 2021/0274175 A1), Tsai (US 2021/0329233 A1), Rosewarne (US 2022/0046288 A1), and Bross et al., “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 6),” JVET-O2001-vE, 15th Meeting: Gothenburg, SE, 3–12 July 2019 (herein “Bross”).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests a method of processing video data, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a coding tree node of a video and a bitstream of the video (Examiner notes Applicant uses “conversion” to mean encoding and decoding a video signal), a scheme according to a rule for splitting a luma parent block of the coding tree node and a chroma parent block of the coding tree node (Tsai, ¶¶ 0003 and 0005: teaches the state of the art video coding standard uses partitioning in which coding tree nodes for both luma and chroma channels are split), and for predicting one or more luma blocks from the luma parent block and one or more chroma blocks from the chroma parent block (Tsai, ¶¶ 0004 and 0006: teaches the coding tree units are used for prediction; Tsai is not relied upon to teach that luma blocks are predicted from luma blocks and chroma blocks are predicted from chroma blocks; Lim, ¶ 0075: teaches the coding tree units are differentiated by their color channel, i.e. luma Y and chroma Cb and Cr; Lim, ¶ 0141: teaches intra luma prediction and intra chroma prediction); and performing the conversion based on the scheme, wherein the rule specifies that a first prediction mode is available for a luma block of the one or more luma blocks with a width equal to four samples (As the next limitation explains, the prediction mode is IBC mode; Lim, ¶ 0354: explains luma blocks of dimension M×N having a width or height less than or equal to 64 can be IBC coded; regarding width equal to four, see also Bross, Section 7.4.9.5, discussed infra), wherein in the first prediction mode, prediction samples are derived from blocks of sample values of a same picture as determined by a block vector (Lim, ¶ 0003 and Fig. 4: teaches intra-prediction modes; Lim, ¶ 0354: teaches intra block copy (IBC) mode, which is a type of intra prediction mode that utilizes “block vectors” instead of “motion vectors” to reference predictions from a same picture), wherein a first scheme is applied to the coding tree node for a first color format, and a second scheme different from the first scheme is applied to the coding tree node for a second color format different from the first color format in case that the coding tree node satisfies a predetermined condition relating to a size of the luma parent block (Examiner notes that when the color scheme is 4:2:0 rather than 4:4:4, a parent luma block would be, for example 8x8, while a parent chroma block would be 4x4 and further notes that a common color subsampling scheme is 4:2:0; Rosewarne, ¶ 0130: teaches one of the first steps is determining the color format so that the size of the chroma block relative to the luma block can be determined; See, infra, for more rationale regarding the block sizes for luma and chroma and which sizes are disallowed to be further split; Bross, Section 6.2: teaches color formats 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 signaled using the chroma_format_idc variable; Examiner notes values of 0 or 3 correspond to 4:0:0 and 4:4:4 respectively while values of 1 or 2 correspond to 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 respectively; Bross, 7.4.3.2: teaches CtbWidthC and CtbHeightC are zero when monochrome; Bross, 8.1.2: teaches that 4:0:0 and 4:4:4 receive identical operations due to the logic that sets ChromaArrayType to 0; Bross, 7.3.2.3: teaches the ChromaArrayType not being zero means the qtbtt_dual_tree_intra_flag is read and that means the splitting scheme is influenced as related to the size of the parent luma block (see Bross, pg. 91); Bross, 6.4.1: teaches the inputs into the process of deciding whether quad tree splitting is allowed include the size of the luma parent block, whether the CTU is partitioned using single tree or dual tree, whether there are any chroma components, and the modeType for the block; Examiner finds necessarily implicated in the inputs are other conditional pieces of information that are derived from these inputs or derive the inputs), wherein for a first luma parent block and a first chroma parent block of a first coding tree node, the second scheme specifies that in response to (1) a slice type of the first coding tree node being I slice (Rosewarne, ¶ 0065: explains an I-slice indicates every CU in the slice is intra-predicted) and having a 4:2:0 color format and (2) the first luma parent block of the first coding tree node having a predetermined size MxN, the first luma parent block of the first coding tree node is allowed to be split to two or more luma blocks with a horizontal BT (binary tree) partition or a vertical BT partition, and the first chroma parent block of the first coding tree node is not allowed to be split with the horizontal BT partition or the vertical BT partition (Lim, ¶ 0307: teaches chroma block sizes of 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 are not allowed, thus a 4x4 chroma block cannot be binary tree partitioned vertically or horizontally to produce either a 2x4 or 4x2 partition; Tsai, ¶ 0057: likewise teaches a smallest allowed chroma block is 4x4 and that further splitting into 2x2, 2x4, or 4x2 is not allowed; Tsai, ¶ 0048: teaches generally restricting vertical binary tree partitioning according to e.g. block width; Tsai, ¶ 0051: teaches constraining vertical BT splitting based on block width; Examiner finds the general knowledge of one skilled in this art includes knowledge of setting a minimum partition size for luma and chroma; Rosewarne, ¶¶ 0141–0143: teaches that when the luma block is 8x8, vertical binary chroma splitting is not allowed in 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 mode because it would result in chroma blocks that are too small; For example, an 8x8 luma block can be vertically split to produce two 4x8 luma blocks, but then chroma subsampling (e.g. 4:2:0) would create chroma blocks that are too small and thus while the luma block can be further split, the chroma block cannot be), wherein mode type of the two or more luma blocks split from the first luma parent block of the first coding tree node based on the second scheme are set to MODE_TYPE_INTRA or MODE_TYPE_INTER, and wherein M and N are positive integers (Examiner notes that because this limitation is focused on the luma block, the luma block is always allowed to be further split according to the limitation above, i.e. the luma block is twice the size of the chroma block in 4:2:0 and will be, minimum 8x8 prior to splitting and thus subject to further splitting without reaching block sizes that are “too small,” i.e. 4x2, 2x2, 2x4; Rosewarne, ¶¶ 0141–0143: teaches that when the luma block is 8x8, vertical binary chroma splitting is not allowed in 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 mode because it would result in chroma blocks that are too small; For example, an 8x8 luma block can be vertically split to produce two 4x8 luma blocks, but then chroma subsampling (e.g. 4:2:0) would create chroma blocks that are too small and thus while the luma block can be further split, the chroma block cannot be; Tsai, ¶ 0070: teaches employing the disclosed partitioning constraints according to an intra prediction mode; Lim, ¶ 0246: teaches a minimum coding unit size can be determined for a prediction type such as an intra prediction type; Lim, ¶ 0246: teaches a minimum coding unit size can be determined for a prediction type such as an intra prediction type or an inter prediction type; Rosewarne, e.g. ¶ 0121: teaches that for intra coded blocks, small block sizes are not desirable; Rosewarne, ¶ 0129: is a good starting reference point for the split structures and explains that the coding mode can have implications in which types of splits are allowed; see also Rosewarne, ¶ 0115: teaching bus underutilization due to too small block size is an issue for intra coding modes but not for inter coding modes; Bross, 6.4.2: teaches the inputs into the process of deciding whether binary tree splitting is allowed include the claimed inputs including size of the parent block, whether the treeType is dual tree chroma, whether the slice is an I-slice (i.e. intra); Bross, pgs. 51 and 57: explains in an IF STATEMENT that slice_type is I and qtbtt_dual_tree_intra_flag are used together for making decisions on splitting chroma blocks; Examiner finds necessarily implicated in the inputs are other conditional pieces of information that are derived from these inputs or derive the inputs), and wherein a first syntax element is included in the bitstream to indicate whether the first prediction mode is enabled, and wherein the rule specifies that when the first syntax element is not present in the bitstream, the first prediction mode is inferred to be used for a first block when a second syntax element cu_skip_flag being equal to 1 and a mode type of the first block being equal to MODE_TYPE_INTRA (Bross, Section 7.4.9.5: teaches a first inquiry that asks whether the block is skipped and whether the block width and height are 4, and if so then infers the pred_mode_ibc_flag as equal to 1 (i.e. true); see also Bross, Section 7.3.8.5 explaining the same in pseudocode; Bross, Section 7.4.9.5: teaches a third inquiry that asks whether the block is MODE_TYPE_INTER (which reciprocally also means asking whether the block is MODE_TYPE_INTRA), and if the prediction mode is INTER then infers the pred_mode_ibc_flag as equal to 0 (i.e. false)); see also Bross, Section 7.3.8.5 explaining the same in pseudocode; See Bross, Section 7.4.9.5 and the description of pred_mode_flag, which explains that a value of 0 = inter; 1 = intra. MODE_TYPE_ALL means we don’t yet know what the coding mode is. Bross, Section 7.3.8.5 explains that if modeType is MODE_TYPE_ALL, that gets fixed by decoding the pred_mode_flag. In other words, at the time pred_mode_ibc_flag is determined, there is no possibility of MODE_TYPE_ALL; The preceding is from a response to an argument presented by Applicant in the parent case).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lim, with those of Tsai, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice block partitioning in video coding would be led to their relevant teachings and because both references teach restricting block sizes to certain minimum block sizes such that Applicant’s principal feature is demonstrably obvious in view of the prior art. Thus, Applicant’s combination is nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, yielding a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lim and Tsai used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lim and Tsai, with those of Rosewarne, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor (partitioning schemes in video coding) such that one wishing to practice partitioning schemes in video coding would be led to their relevant teachings, because all three references teach restricting chroma partitioning to disallow 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 chroma block sizes such that Applicant’s principal feature is demonstrably obvious in view of the prior art, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements (those disclosed in the references), according to known methods (adjusting coding algorithms is a straightforward process of modifying the software code to implement the calculation or constraint), to yield a predictable result (a more efficient or more robust coding tool used in the video compression standard). Thus Applicant’s combination is nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, yielding a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lim, Tsai, and Rosewarne used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lim, Tsai, and Rosewarne, with those of Bross, because all four references are drawn to the same field of endeavor (partitioning schemes in video coding) such that one skilled in the art wishing to practice partitioning schemes in this art would be led to their combined teachings, because all four references teach restricting chroma partitioning to disallow 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 chroma block sizes such that Applicant’s principal feature is demonstrably obvious in view of the prior art, and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements (those disclosed in the references), according to known methods (adjusting coding algorithms is a straightforward process of modifying the software code to implement the calculation or constraint), to yield a predictable result (a more efficient or more robust coding tool used in the video compression standard). Thus, Applicant’s combination is nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, yielding a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the first prediction mode is an intra block copy (IBC) mode (Lim, ¶ 0354: teaches intra block copy (IBC) mode, which is a type of intra prediction mode that utilizes “block vectors” instead of “motion vectors” to reference predictions from a same picture).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the rule specifies that the first prediction mode is available for a luma block with a height equal to or less than H, where H is a positive integer, and wherein H is predefined to be 64 (Lim, ¶ 0354: explains luma blocks of dimension M×N having a width or height less than or equal to 64 can be IBC coded).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein when different splitting schemes are used to split the luma parent block and the chroma parent block (Tsai, ¶ 0005: teaches the same recursive partitioning is applied to both luma and chroma; Examiner notes the art uses the term, “dual tree” to refer to whether luma and chroma share the same splitting structure or whether they have different splitting structures; Examiner further notes that luma and chroma can have different sizes when sharing a splitting structure in the 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 subsampling scheme; Bross, Section 6.4.1–6.4.3: teaches a treeType variable that influences how blocks can be recursively split wherein dual tree indicates separate processing (incl. splitting) of the luma and chroma components), the rule specifies that the first prediction mode is not available for the one or more chroma blocks, and wherein a tree type of the one or more chroma blocks is dual tree (Examiner notes the first prediction mode is IBC according to original claim 2; Bross, Section 7.3.8.5: teaches pred_mode_ibc_flag, which enables IBC mode, is not available for DUAL_TREE_CHROMA; Bross, Section 7.4.9.5: teaches a fourth inquiry for the pred_mode_ibc_flag that if DUAL_TREE_CHROMA is true, then IBC is disabled; Examiner notes Bross, page 4 explains one of the features added to the standard was, “Disabling IBC for chroma in case of dual tree”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the rule specifies that the first prediction mode is available for a block with a mode type that is equal to MODE_TYPE_INTRA, wherein the rule further specifies that the first prediction mode is available for a block with a mode type that is equal to MODE_TYPE_INTRA and the block is not skipped, and wherein the rule specifies that the second syntax element cu_skip_flag is included in the bitstream to indicate the block is not skipped (Bross, Section 7.4.9.5: teaches, under the description for pred_mode_ibc_flag, a hierarchical decision tree which checks the values of cu_skip_flag (inquiry #1, page 138) and modeType (inquiry #3, page 138) wherein if cu_skip_flag is 1 (and other conditions) or if modeType is equal to MODE_TYPE_INTER, then pred_mode_ibc_flag can be inferred to be a given value; Thus the opposite is taught or suggested by Bross, i.e., if the cu_skip_flag is 0 (inquiry #1 not met) and the modeTYPE is MODE_TYPE_INTRA (inquiry #3 not met), then pred_mode_ibc_flag may not be inferred and thus could be conditionally included in the bitstream (perhaps contingent on additional conditions); See Bross, Section 7.4.9.5 and the description of pred_mode_flag, which explains that a value of 0 = inter; 1 = intra. MODE_TYPE_ALL means we don’t yet know what the coding mode is. Bross, Section 7.3.8.5 explains that if modeType is MODE_TYPE_ALL, that gets fixed by decoding the pred_mode_flag. In other words, at the time pred_mode_ibc_flag is determined, there is no possibility of MODE_TYPE_ALL; The preceding is from a response to an argument presented by Applicant in the parent case).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the rule specifies that when the first syntax element is not present, the first prediction mode is inferred to be used for a second block when a width and a height of a coding block is equal to 4 and the second block is skipped (Bross, Section 7.4.9.5: teaches a first inquiry that asks whether the block is skipped and whether the block width and height are 4, and if so then infers the pred_mode_ibc_flag as equal to 1 (i.e. true); see also Bross, Section 7.3.8.5 explaining the same in pseudocode).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the first color format is 4:0:0 color format or 4:4:4 color format, and the second color format is 4:2:0 color format or 4:2:2 color format (Bross, Section 6.2: teaches color formats 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 signaled using the chroma_format_idc variable; Examiner notes values of 0 or 3 correspond to 4:0:0 and 4:4:4 respectively while values of 1 or 2 correspond to 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 respectively; Bross, 7.4.3.2: teaches CtbWidthC and CtbHeightC are zero when monochrome; Bross, 8.1.2: teaches that 4:0:0 and 4:4:4 receive identical operations due to the logic that sets ChromaArrayType to 0), wherein the first scheme and the second scheme have different constraints on mode types of the one or more luma blocks and the one or more chroma blocks, wherein in the first scheme, the mode types of the one or more luma blocks and the one or more chroma blocks are MODE_TYPE_ALL (Bross, 6.4.1: teaches the inputs into the process of deciding whether quad tree splitting is allowed include the size of the luma parent block, whether the CTU is partitioned using single tree or dual tree, whether there are any chroma components, and the modeType for the block; Examiner finds necessarily implicated in the inputs are other conditional pieces of information that are derived from these inputs or derive the inputs; Bross, 7.3.8.4 and 7.4.9.4: teaches modeTypeCondition == 1 creates a scenario in which the modeType may be set to modeTypeCurr, which can be MODE_TYPE_ALL), and wherein in the second scheme, the mode types of the one or more luma blocks and the one or more chroma blocks are MODE_TYPE_INTRA or MODE_TYPE_INTER (Bross, 6.4.1: teaches the inputs into the process of deciding whether quad tree splitting is allowed include the size of the luma parent block, whether the CTU is partitioned using single tree or dual tree, whether there are any chroma components, and the modeType for the block; Examiner finds necessarily implicated in the inputs are other conditional pieces of information that are derived from these inputs or derive the inputs; Bross, 7.3.8.4 and 7.4.9.4: teaches modeTypeCondition == 2 creates a scenario in which the modeType may be set to MODE_TYPE_INTRA or MODE_TYPE_INTER).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the first color format is 4:0:0 color format or 4:4:4 color format, and the second color format is 4:2:0 color format or 4:2:2 color format (Bross, Section 6.2: teaches color formats 4:0:0, 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 signaled using the chroma_format_idc variable; Examiner notes values of 0 or 3 correspond to 4:0:0 and 4:4:4 respectively while values of 1 or 2 correspond to 4:2:0 or 4:2:2 respectively; Bross, 7.4.3.2: teaches CtbWidthC and CtbHeightC are zero when monochrome; Bross, 8.1.2: teaches that 4:0:0 and 4:4:4 receive identical operations due to the logic that sets ChromaArrayType to 0), wherein in the first scheme, a same partitioning scheme is used to partition the chroma parent block and the luma parent block (Examiner notes this is single tree), wherein in the second scheme, when a mode type of the chroma parent block is MODE_TYPE_INTRA, different partitioning schemes are used to partition the chroma parent block and the luma parent block separately, wherein in the second scheme, the chroma parent block is not allowed to be partitioned, and a tree type of the chroma parent block is set to DUAL_TREE_CHROMA (Bross, 6.4.1: teaches that the quad tree split is not allowed when, “treeType is equal to DUAL_TREE_CHROMA and modeType is equal to MODE_TYPE_INTRA”), and wherein in the second scheme, when a mode type of the chroma parent block is MODE_TYPE_INTRA, constraints on a size of the chroma parent block are a same for 4:2:0 color format and 4:2:2 color format (Bross, 6.4.1: treats 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 the same with respect to minimum chroma block size, i.e. regardless of size; Lim, ¶ 0307: teaches chroma block sizes of 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 are not allowed, thus a 4x4 chroma block cannot be binary tree partitioned vertically to produce a 2x4 partition; Tsai, ¶ 0057: likewise teaches a smallest allowed chroma block is 4x4 and that further splitting into 2x2, 2x4, or 4x2 is not allowed; Tsai, ¶ 0048: teaches generally restricting vertical binary tree partitioning according to e.g. block width; Tsai, ¶ 0051: teaches constraining vertical BT splitting based on block width; Examiner notes the prior art generally teaches setting a minimum partition size for luma and chroma), wherein the constraints comprise that at least one of a width and a height of the chroma parent block are both no less than 4 (Bross, 6.4.1: teaches the inputs into the process of deciding whether quad tree splitting is allowed include the size of the luma parent block, whether the CTU is partitioned using single tree or dual tree, whether there are any chroma components, and the modeType for the block; Examiner finds necessarily implicated in the inputs are other conditional pieces of information that are derived from these inputs or derive the inputs; Bross, 6.4.1: teaches dual tree chroma and cbSize equal to or less than 4 means no quad tree split).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition further relates to a partition type of a luma parent block,(Strike-through language has been removed from the claim, but is kept for posterity; Bross, 6.4.2: teaches the inputs into the process of deciding whether binary tree splitting is allowed include the claimed inputs including size of the parent block, whether the treeType is dual tree chroma, whether the slice is an I-slice (i.e. intra); Examiner finds necessarily implicated in the inputs are other conditional pieces of information that are derived from these inputs or derive the inputs; Lim, ¶ 0307: teaches chroma block sizes of 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 are not allowed, thus a 4x4 chroma block cannot be binary tree partitioned vertically to produce a 2x4 partition; Tsai, ¶ 0057: likewise teaches a smallest allowed chroma block is 4x4 and that further splitting into 2x2, 2x4, or 4x2 is not allowed; Tsai, ¶ 0048: teaches generally restricting vertical binary tree partitioning according to e.g. block width; Tsai, ¶ 0051: teaches constraining vertical BT splitting based on block width; Examiner notes the prior art generally teaches setting a minimum partition size for luma and chroma)(Lim, ¶ 0307: teaches chroma block sizes of 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 are not allowed, thus a 4x4 chroma block cannot be binary tree partitioned vertically to produce a 2x4 partition; Tsai, ¶ 0057: likewise teaches a smallest allowed chroma block is 4x4 and that further splitting into 2x2, 2x4, or 4x2 is not allowed; Tsai, ¶ 0048: teaches generally restricting vertical binary tree partitioning according to e.g. block width; Tsai, ¶ 0051: teaches constraining vertical BT splitting based on block width; Examiner notes the prior art generally teaches setting a minimum partition size for luma and chroma), wherein mode types of the two or more luma blocks and the two or more chroma blocks are set to MODE_TYPE_ALL, and wherein P×Q=64 (Bross, 7.4.9.4: teaches, for binary split, the cbWidth x cbHeight equal to 64 means modeTypeCondition can be set to 2 when the slice type is I, in which case the block is set to MODE_TYPE_ALL (as defined elsewhere in Bross)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition further relates to a partition type of a luma parent block, wherein in the second scheme, for a third coding tree node with a slice type being I slice, with a 4:2:0 color format and with a third luma parent block of the third coding tree node having a predetermined size S×T, the third luma parent block of the third coding tree node is allowed to be split to two or more luma blocks with a horizontal ternary tree (TT) partition or a vertical TT partition, and a third chroma parent block of the third coding tree node is not allowed to be split with the horizontal TT partition or the vertical TT partition, and wherein mode types of the two or more luma blocks and the third chroma parent block are set to MODE_TYPE_INTRA or MODE_TYPE_INTER, and wherein S and T are positive integers (Bross, 6.4.3: teaches the inputs into the process of deciding whether ternary tree splitting is allowed include the claimed inputs including size of the parent luma block, whether the treeType is dual tree chroma, whether the slice is an I-slice (i.e. intra); Examiner finds necessarily implicated in the inputs are other conditional pieces of information that are derived from these inputs or derive the inputs; Lim, ¶ 0307: teaches chroma block sizes of 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 are not allowed, thus a 4x4 chroma block cannot be binary tree partitioned vertically to produce a 2x4 partition; Tsai, ¶ 0057: likewise teaches a smallest allowed chroma block is 4x4 and that further splitting into 2x2, 2x4, or 4x2 is not allowed; Tsai, ¶ 0048: teaches generally restricting vertical binary tree partitioning according to e.g. block width; Tsai, ¶ 0051: teaches constraining vertical BT splitting based on block width; Examiner notes the prior art generally teaches setting a minimum partition size for luma and chroma; Examiner notes a vertical ternary split of a chroma 8x8 block would yield chroma sub-blocks smaller than or not equal to 4x4 blocks, e.g. 2x8, 4x8, and 2x8; Tsai, ¶ 0088: teaches it is desirable to ensure chroma blocks are restricted to be larger than or equal to 4x4; Lim, ¶ 0246: likewise teaches the desirability to optionally limit the size of a coding unit to a minimum size of 4x4; Lim, ¶ 0185: teaches a binary tree splitting yielding a child node that can no longer be split by a binary tree partitioning; This last feature may be important for recognizing that while a 4x8 partition (like the one described supra) could be binary split into two 4x4 blocks, according to some embodiments of the prior art, such a result would not be possible); or wherein in the second scheme, for a fourth coding tree node with a slice type being I slice, with a 4:2:2 color format and with a fourth luma parent block having the predetermined size S×T, the fourth luma parent block and a fourth chroma parent block of the fourth coding tree node are both allowed to be split to two or more luma blocks and two or more chroma blocks with the horizontal TT partition or the vertical TT partition (Lim, ¶ 0307: teaches chroma block sizes of 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 are not allowed, thus a 4x4 chroma block cannot be binary tree partitioned vertically to produce a 2x4 partition; Tsai, ¶ 0057: likewise teaches a smallest allowed chroma block is 4x4 and that further splitting into 2x2, 2x4, or 4x2 is not allowed; Tsai, ¶ 0048: teaches generally restricting vertical binary tree partitioning according to e.g. block width; Tsai, ¶ 0051: teaches constraining vertical BT splitting based on block width; Examiner notes the prior art generally teaches setting a minimum partition size for luma and chroma), and wherein the mode types of the two or more luma blocks and the two or more chroma blocks are set to MODE_TYPE_ALL, and wherein S×T=128 (Bross, 7.4.9.4: teaches, for ternary split, the cbWidth x cbHeight equal to 128 means modeTypeCondition can be set to 2 when the slice type is I, in which case the block is set to MODE_TYPE_ALL (as defined elsewhere in Bross)).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the rule further specifies that a chroma block of the one or more chroma blocks applying the first prediction mode or a second prediction mode is constrained to have a width greater than two chroma samples, and wherein the second prediction mode is an intra coding mode (Lim, ¶ 0307: teaches chroma block sizes of 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 are not allowed, thus a 4x4 chroma block cannot be binary tree partitioned vertically to produce a 2x4 partition; Tsai, ¶ 0057: likewise teaches a smallest allowed chroma block is 4x4 and that further splitting into 2x2, 2x4, or 4x2 is not allowed; Tsai, ¶ 0048: teaches generally restricting vertical binary tree partitioning according to e.g. block width; Tsai, ¶ 0051: teaches constraining vertical BT splitting based on block width).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 12, wherein the rule specifies that a chroma block is constrained to have a width greater than two chroma samples when a tree type of the chroma block is equal to a dual tree type, wherein the rule specifies that a vertical binary tree (BT) split is disabled for the chroma parent block when a tree type of the chroma parent block is equal to a dual tree type and a width of the chroma parent block is equal to 4 chroma samples (Lim, ¶ 0307: teaches chroma block sizes of 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 are not allowed, thus a 4x4 chroma block cannot be binary tree partitioned vertically to produce a 2x4 partition; Tsai, ¶ 0057: likewise teaches a smallest allowed chroma block is 4x4 and that further splitting into 2x2, 2x4, or 4x2 is not allowed; Tsai, ¶ 0048: teaches generally restricting vertical binary tree partitioning according to e.g. block width; Tsai, ¶ 0051: teaches constraining vertical BT splitting based on block width), and wherein the rule specifies that a vertical ternary tree (TT) split is disabled for the chroma parent block when a tree type of the chroma parent block is equal to a dual tree type and a width of the chroma parent block is equal to 8 chroma samples (Examiner notes a vertical ternary split of a chroma 8x8 block would yield chroma sub-blocks smaller than or not equal to 4x4 blocks, e.g. 2x8, 4x8, and 2x8; Tsai, ¶ 0088: teaches it is desirable to ensure chroma blocks are restricted to be larger than or equal to 4x4; Lim, ¶ 0246: likewise teaches the desirability to optionally limit the size of a coding unit to a minimum size of 4x4; Lim, ¶ 0185: teaches a binary tree splitting yielding a child node that can no longer be split by a binary tree partitioning; This last feature may be important for recognizing that while a 4x8 partition (like the one described supra) could be binary split into two 4x4 blocks, according to some embodiments of the prior art, such a result would not be possible).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 12, wherein the luma parent block is generated from a luma coding tree block based on a luma partition scheme including recursive partition operations, and the chroma parent block is generated from a chroma coding tree block based on a chroma partition scheme having a same recursive partition operations with the luma partition scheme (Examiner notes this is defined as single tree in the art; Lim, ¶ 0165: teaches recursive partitioning; Tsai, ¶ 0005: teaches the same recursive partitioning is applied to both luma and chroma), wherein the rule specifies that when the luma parent block has a width equal to 8 luma samples and the chroma parent block has a width equal to 4 chroma samples (Examiner notes this is a typical relationship in the 4:2:0 color sampling format), when a mode type of the chroma parent block is MODE_TYPE_INTRA (Tsai, ¶ 0070: teaches employing the disclosed partitioning constraints according to an intra prediction mode; Lim, ¶ 0246: teaches a minimum coding unit size can be determined for a prediction type such as an intra prediction type), a vertical binary tree (BT) split is disabled for the chroma parent block (Lim, ¶ 0307: teaches chroma block sizes of 2x2, 2x4, and 4x2 are not allowed, thus a 4x4 chroma block cannot be binary tree partitioned vertically to produce a 2x4 partition; Tsai, ¶ 0057: likewise teaches a smallest allowed chroma block is 4x4 and that further splitting into 2x2, 2x4, or 4x2 is not allowed; Tsai, ¶ 0048: teaches generally restricting vertical binary tree partitioning according to e.g. block width; Tsai, ¶ 0051: teaches constraining vertical BT splitting based on block width; Examiner notes the prior art generally teaches setting a minimum partition size for luma and chroma), and a vertical BT is allowed for the luma parent block (According to the cited art, at the size of 8, the luma block is not too small to be BT split), wherein MODE_TYPE_INTRA indicates an applicability of an intra mode, a palette mode, and an intra block copy mode (Bross, 6.4.3: teaches exactly the claimed feature), wherein the rule specifies that when the luma parent block has the width equal to 8 luma samples and the chroma parent block has the width equal to 4 chroma samples, when a mode type of the chroma parent block is not the MODE_TYPE_INTRA, the vertical BT split is allowed for both the chroma parent block and the luma parent block (Rosewarne, ¶ 0115: teaches bus underutilization due to too small block size is an issue for intra coding modes but not for inter coding modes), wherein the rule specifies that when the luma parent block has the width equal to 16 luma samples and the chroma parent block has the width equal to 8 chroma samples, when a mode type of the chroma parent block is the MODE_TYPE_INTRA, a vertical ternary tree (TT) split is disabled for the chroma parent block and is allowed for the luma parent block (Examiner notes a vertical ternary split of a chroma 8x8 block would yield chroma sub-blocks smaller than or not equal to 4x4 blocks, e.g. 2x8, 4x8, and 2x8; Tsai, ¶ 0088: teaches it is desirable to ensure chroma blocks are restricted to be larger than or equal to 4x4; Lim, ¶ 0246: likewise teaches the desirability to optionally limit the size of a coding unit to a minimum size of 4x4; Lim, ¶ 0185: teaches a binary tree splitting yielding a child node that can no longer be split by a binary tree partitioning; This last feature may be important for recognizing that while a 4x8 partition (like the one described supra) could be binary split into two 4x4 blocks, according to some embodiments of the prior art, such a result would not be possible), and wherein the rule specifies that when the luma parent block has the width equal to 16 luma samples and the chroma parent block has the width equal to 8 chroma samples, when a mode type of the chroma parent block is not the MODE_TYPE_INTRA, the vertical TT split is allowed for both the chroma parent block and the luma parent block (Rosewarne, ¶ 0115: teaches bus underutilization due to too small block size is an issue for intra coding modes but not for inter coding modes).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 12, wherein the rule specifies that a chroma block applying a third prediction mode is constrained to have a width greater than or equal to 4, wherein in the third prediction mode, an intra prediction signal and an inter prediction signal are combined by coefficients to generate a prediction signal (Examiner notes Applicant is not asserting this third prediction mode is novel, suggesting the prediction mode is an art-recognized prior art prediction mode; Examiner finds the third prediction mode is combined intra inter prediction (CIIP), a prior art coding mode; Tsai, ¶ 0070: teaches employing the disclosed partitioning constraints according to prediction mode and specifically teaches CIIP; Lim, ¶ 0246: teaches a minimum coding unit size can be determined for a prediction type such as an intra prediction type or inter prediction type), and wherein the rule specifies that the intra prediction signal in the third prediction mode is derived based on a planar mode (Examiner notes Applicant is not asserting this third prediction mode is novel, suggesting the prediction mode is an art-recognized prior art prediction mode; Examiner finds the third prediction mode is combined intra inter prediction (CIIP), a prior art coding mode; Tsai, ¶ 0070: teaches employing the disclosed partitioning constraints according to prediction mode and specifically teaches CIIP; Examiner notes prior art CIIP can combine an intra mode, like planar mode, with an inter mode; Lim, ¶ 0246: teaches a minimum coding unit size can be determined for a prediction type such as an intra prediction type or inter prediction type; Lim, ¶ 0318: teaches planar mode; Tsai, ¶ 0090: teaches a planar combination mode).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (Tsai, Abstract: teaches encoding and decoding).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lim, Tsai, Rosewarne, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (Tsai, Abstract: teaches encoding and decoding).
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 1. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 21 lists the same elements as claim 8, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 8 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ye (US 2017/0251213 A1) teaches the combined intra-inter prediction mode using weighting coefficients which is applicable to non-angular intra prediction modes such as planar mode (¶ 0057). This reference is applicable to Applicant’s original claim 15.
Yang H, Shen L, Dong X, Ding Q, An P, Jiang G. Low-complexity CTU partition structure decision and fast intra mode decision for versatile video coding. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology. 2019.
Wang Z, Wang S, Zhang J, Wang S, Ma S, editors. Effective quadtree plus binary tree block partition decision for future video coding. 2017 Data Compression Conference (DCC); 2017: IEEE.
Y. -W. Huang et al., “Block Partitioning Structure in the VVC Standard,” in IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 31, no. 10, pp. 3818-3833, Oct. 2021.
Rosewarne (US 2022/0046288 A1) teaches 8x8 luma blocks in 4:2:0 format would yield a chroma channel that could not be further split because the chroma transform sizes of 2x2 or 2x4 are not allowed (e.g. ¶¶ 0125 and 0132). Paragraph [0115] teaches that for intra prediction modes the block size of 16 is most desirable to eliminate potentially crippling bus underutilization which could prevent real-time operations. Paragraph [0115] teaches that inter-prediction modes do not suffer the same problem. See also, ¶¶ 0127 and 0146.
Choi (US 2021/0250606 A1) teaches, “for slices having an I type (i.e. an I slice), only intra prediction modes may be utilized.” (¶ 0039).
Ye (US 2017/0318302 A1) teaches, “both palette coding and IntraBC coding are considered as a coding mode for an Intra slice (i.e. I-slice).”
Chiang (US 2019/0379901 A1) teaches it is common in CIIP mode, wherein the prediction is a combination of an inter-prediction and an intra-prediction, to use as the intra-prediction mode planar mode (¶¶ 0075 and 0079).
Bross et al., “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 6),” JVET-O2001-vE, 15th Meeting: Gothenburg, SE, 3–12 July 2019. Section 7.4.9.5 explains the coding unit semantics for cu_skip and pred_mode_ibc flags.
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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights