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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument is that the prior art of record, Laroche et al (US 2020/0288135) in view of Tsukuba (US 2021/0092413), does not teach deriving the chroma prediction block based on a DC mode. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant argues that Laroche teaches a LM mode. The examiner points that the LM mode just references linear mode used as part of the prediction process for the chroma block. Intra prediction modes are known to be DC, planar, and /or angular modes. The LM mode adds a layer to the intra prediction to enable chroma prediction block using the proposed intra modes (Laroche: ¶ 104) and a reconfigured reconstructed luma block. Thus, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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 chroma prediction block of the chroma block based on the reconfigured reconstructed luma block and the prediction parameter,
wherein the deriving the chroma prediction block of the chroma block comprises:
deriving a prediction block based on a DC mode (¶ 104),
wherein the chroma block is for one of a Cb component or a Cr component, 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).);
wherein the chroma prediction block of the chroma block is derived based on the reconfigured reconstructed luma block, the prediction parameter, and the prediction block derived based on the DC mode (¶ 239 and 240).
However, Laroche does not explicitly teach deriving a prediction block based on a DC mode, wherein the chroma block is for one of a Cb component or a Cr component, wherein a prediction parameter for the Cb component and a prediction parameter for the Cr component are derived respectively.
In the same field of endeavor, Tsukuba teaches deriving a prediction block based on a DC mode, wherein the chroma block is for one of a Cb component or a Cr component, wherein a prediction parameter for the Cb component and a prediction parameter for the Cr component are derived respectively (¶ 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights