DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 17, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Laroche teaches reconfiguring reconstructed luma block. Laroche discloses down sampling which depicts reconfiguring. Further, to predict chroma block, Laroche, it is disclosed that a prediction process associated with the luma block is applied to the chroma block.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1 – 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laroche et al (US 2020/0288135, hereafter Laroche) in view of Tsukuba (US 2021/0092413).
As per claim 1, Laroche discloses an image decoding method performed by a decoding apparatus, the method comprising:
receiving a prediction parameter for intra prediction of a chroma block (¶ 118; In case of INTRA mode, an INTRA predictor block is determined 205 based on the INTRA prediction mode specified in the bitstream 201. );
reconstructing a luma block corresponding to the chroma block; reconfiguring the luma block (¶ 80 and 139); and
deriving a prediction block of the chroma block based on the reconfigured luma block and the prediction parameters, wherein the chroma block is for one of a Cb component or a Cr component, and wherein a prediction parameter for the Cb component and a prediction parameter for the Cr component are derived respectively (¶ 139; It is used to predict both chroma components Cb and Cr from the luma Y, more specifically from the reconstructed luma output by the decoding process (possibly the decoding loop at the encoder).).
However, Laroche does not explicitly teach wherein the deriving the prediction block of the chroma block comprises: deriving a prediction a signal based on one of intra prediction modes, wherein the intra prediction modes include a DC mode, wherein the prediction block of the chroma block is derived based on the prediction signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsukuba teaches wherein the deriving the prediction block of the chroma block comprises: deriving a prediction a signal based on one of intra prediction modes, wherein the intra prediction modes include a DC mode, wherein the prediction block of the chroma block is derived based on the prediction signal (¶ 239 and 240).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Laroche in view of Tsukuba. The advantage is an improved video coder.
As per claim 2, Laroche discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining whether the luma block is used to predict the chroma block is determined based on an encoding parameter for the chroma block; wherein the encoding parameter includes prediction mode information for the chroma block (¶ 139 and 140; Here, Lacroche discloses whether to apply cross-component linear model for predicting the current chroma block).
As per claim 3, Laroche discloses the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the prediction parameter is applied to the reconfigured luma block, and wherein the prediction parameter is obtained from a bitstream (¶146; the linear model (defined by one or two parameters, a slope a and an offset β) is derived from RecL).
As per claim 4, the image decoding method of claim 1, wherein the reconfiguring the luma block includes sub-sampling the reconstructed luma block.
Regarding claim 5, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached on 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487