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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, 20, 21-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0169752 A1 (“Rath”) in view of WO 2019/103542 A1 (“Yoo”). (Note: Yoo was previously attached).
Regarding claim 1, Rath discloses a video decoding method, comprising:
constructing a candidate list based on intra-prediction modes of at least one neighboring block adjacent to a current block (e.g. see at least form initial MPM set using neighbor blocks’ intra prediction modes in 1110 in Fig. 11, paragraph [0095], for example, Figs. 5-9 illustrate neighbor intra prediction modes considered for the MPM list construction; also see obtaining MPM set in 1305 in Fig. 13, paragraph [0104]);
reordering candidate modes in the candidate list (e.g. see at least reordering MPM set as a result of the process starting in sort angular modes 1120 in Fig. 11 to the end of Fig. 11, paragraphs [0096]-[0100]);
determining an intra-prediction mode of the current block based on a reordered candidate list (e.g. see at least decode the intra prediction mode in 1395 in Fig. 13 based on the MPM set, paragraphs [0104]-[0105]); and
generating a prediction block of the current block based on the intra-prediction mode of the current block (e.g. see at least predicted block from intra prediction 360 in Fig. 3, paragraphs [0052], [0116]),
wherein reordering the candidate modes in the candidate list comprises:
obtaining at least two target intra-prediction modes based on two neighboring blocks adjacent to the current block, wherein a number of target intra-prediction modes is less than a number of the candidate modes in the candidate list (e.g. see intra prediction modes of the left neighboring block L and above block A, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], Table 1; also see at least paragraphs [0062]-[0063], Table 2; note the number of obtained modes from L and A are less than the number of candidate modes in the candidate list, which is 3, i.e. MPM0-MPM2, in Table 1 and/or 6, i.e. MPM0-MPM5, in Table 2); and
reordering all of the candidate modes in the candidate list using the target intra-prediction modes (e.g. see at least reordering MPM set as a result of the process starting in sort angular modes 1120 in Fig. 11 to the end of Fig. 11, paragraphs [0096]-[0100]).
Although Rath discloses
wherein reordering the candidate modes in the candidate list comprises:
obtaining at least two target intra-prediction modes based on two neighboring blocks adjacent to the current block, wherein a number of target intra-prediction modes is less than a number of the candidate modes in the candidate list, it is noted Rath differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose
respectively applying the target intra-prediction modes to reference pixels of a first region adjacent to the current block to generate prediction regions for the first region;
calculating variable values for the target intra-prediction modes based on differences between each of the prediction regions generated for the target intra-prediction modes and the first region; and
reordering all of the candidate modes in the candidate list using the variable values calculated for the target intra-prediction modes.
Yoo however, teaches
respectively applying the target intra-prediction modes to reference pixels of a first region adjacent to the current block to generate prediction regions for the first region (e.g. see at least encoder/decoder sort the MPM candidate list based on the similarity between the predicted block of the template region generated based on the prediction mode in the MPM candidate list as illustrated in Fig. 14, paragraphs [175]-[177]);
calculating variable values for the target intra-prediction modes based on differences between each of the prediction regions generated for the target intra-prediction modes and the first region (e.g. see at least encoder/decoder sort the MPM candidate list based on the similarity between the predicted block of the template region generated based on the prediction mode in the MPM candidate list as illustrated in Fig. 14 and the restored block of the template region, paragraphs [175]-[177]; and see at least calculating differential value such as SATD, SAD, and SSE as example of similarity, paragraphs [167]-[169]); and
reordering all of the candidate modes in the candidate list using the variable values calculated for the target intra-prediction modes (e.g. see at least sorting the order of the MPM candidate list in S1303 in Fig. 13, paragraphs [167]-[169]).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Rath and Yoo before him/her, to modify the method and apparatus for most probable mode (MPM) reordering for intra prediction of Rath with the teachings of Yoo in order to aligning candidate modes of MPM in order to express increased intra-picture prediction modes with fewer bits.
Regarding claim 3, Rath in view of Yoo further teaches wherein the first region comprises at least one of a top region, a left region, and a top-left region of the current block (Yoo: e.g. see at least template region in Fig. 14, paragraphs [175]-[177]). The motivation above in the rejection of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 21, Rath further discloses wherein, when intra-prediction modes of the two neighboring blocks adjacent to the current block are different directional modes, the target intra-prediction modes include the different directional modes (e.g. see at least when the first two most probable modes are not equal, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], Table 1; also see at least paragraphs [0062]-[0063], Table 2).
Regarding claim 22, Rath further discloses wherein, when intra-prediction modes of the two neighboring blocks adjacent to the current block are the same directional mode, the target intra-prediction modes include at least one of a planar mode, the same directional mode, two modes derived from the same directional mode, or combinations thereof (e.g. see at least when the first two most probable modes are the same and the first mode has an angular value or planar, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], Table 1; also see at least paragraphs [0062]-[0063], Table 2).
Regarding claim 23, Rath further discloses wherein, when intra-prediction modes of the two neighboring blocks adjacent to the current block are respectively a directional mode and a non-directional mode, the target intra-prediction modes include at least one of a planar mode, the directional mode, two modes derived from the directional mode, or combinations thereof (e.g. see at least when the first two most probable modes are not equal, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], Table 1; also see at least paragraphs [0062]-[0063], Table 2).
Regarding claim 24, Rath further discloses wherein, when intra-prediction modes of the two neighboring blocks adjacent to the current block are non-directional modes, the target intra-prediction modes include at least two of a planar mode, a DC mode, a vertical mode, a horizontal mode, or combinations thereof (e.g. see at least when the first two most probable modes are not equal, paragraphs [0042]-[0043], Table 1; also see at least paragraphs [0062]-[0063], Table 2).
Regarding claims 11, 20, 25-28, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on page 8-9 of the Remarks that the prior art fails to teach “calculating variable values for the target intra-prediction modes based on differences between each of the prediction regions and the first region” because “Yoo is silent on selecting only at least two target intra-prediction modes from the candidate list and calculating variable values only for the selected target intra-prediction regions generated for the target intra-prediction modes and a first region adjacent to the current block.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., selecting only at least two target intra-prediction modes from the candidate list and calculating variable values only for the selected target intra-prediction regions generated for the target intra-prediction modes and a first region adjacent to the current block) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Similarly, applicant asserts on page 9 of the Remarks that the prior art fails to teach “reordering all of the candidate modes in the candidate list using the variable values calculated for the target intra-prediction modes” because “Yoo is silent on applying subset-based variable values to reorder the entire candidate list and reordering all modes in the candidate list using the variable values calculated solely from the selected target intra-prediction modes.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., applying subset-based variable values to reorder the entire candidate list and reordering all modes in the candidate list using the variable values calculated solely from the selected target intra-prediction modes) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0038680 A1
US 2020/0366900 A1
US 2025/0119548 A1
US 2022/0224913 A1
WO 2020/171673 A1 (previously attached)
US 2022/0038684 A1
US 2020/0195920 A1
US 2020/0099948 A1
US 2013/0114707 A1
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FRANCIS G GEROLEO whose telephone number is (571)270-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am - 3:30 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, Anna M Momper can be reached on (571) 270-5788. 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.
/Francis Geroleo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619