Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “the second intra prediction mode”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second intra prediction mode” in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
First rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 13-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiu et al. (US 2019/0166370) hereinafter “Xiu”.
As per claim 1, Xiu discloses a decoding method, applied to a decoder, comprising:
parsing a bitstream to determine first mode usage identification information of a current block (FIG. 8 shows that the bitstream is parsed by the entropy decoding 804 to determine derive_intra_prediction_mode_flag; see also paragraph 0080);
if the first mode usage identification information indicates that the current block uses a first intra prediction mode, predicting the current block according to the first intra prediction mode to determine a prediction block of the current block (FIG. 8; paragraph 0080, at the decoder, the bit-stream may be first parsed by the entropy decoder 804. The residual coefficients are then inverse quantized and inverse transformed to obtain the reconstructed residual. The coding mode and prediction information are used to obtain the prediction signal using either spatial prediction or temporal prediction. For intra-coded blocks, if the derive_intra_prediction_mode_flag is true, the intra prediction mode is derived at the decoder by module 802…Given the intra prediction mode, a prediction signal is generated by module 806 by predicting the samples of the current block from its adjacent samples); and
if the first mode usage identification information indicates that the current block does not use the first intra prediction mode, parsing the bitstream to determine second mode usage identification information of the current block, determining a target prediction mode of the current block according to the second mode usage identification information, and predicting the current block according to the target prediction mode to determine the prediction block of the current block (this limitation is not examined because the claim recites two conditional limitations that are mutually exclusive, such that if one is performed, then the other does not need to be performed. In Rebstock, the PTAB echoed the Schulhauser guidance, see Ex Parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016), that when there are two mutually exclusive steps (as underlined above), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of [the claim] requires performance of only one of the two mutually exclusive steps.”)
As per claim 2, Xiu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: parsing the bitstream to determine type identification information (paragraph 0154, an intra mode propagation method is disclosed to propagate the intra modes of normal intra blocks (e.g., explicitly signaled intra modes) into the DIMD blocks. Specifically, this embodiment derives the intra mode of each DIMD block that is used to determine the coefficient scanning order at the parsing stage from the intra modes of its spatial neighbors);
if the type identification information indicates that the current block uses an intra prediction mode, parsing the bitstream to determine first mode permission identification information and second mode permission identification information of the current block; and in a case that the first mode permission identification information indicates that the current block is allowed to use the first intra prediction mode and the second mode permission identification information indicates that the current block is allowed to use a second intra prediction mode, performing the operation of parsing the bitstream to determine the first mode usage identification information of the current block.
The claim recites a conditional limitation, namely "if the type identification information indicates that the current block uses an intra prediction mode, parsing the bitstream to determine first mode permission identification information and second mode permission identification information of the current block." That is, the claim does not require the parsing of the bitstream if the type identification information does not indicate that the current block uses an intra prediction mode. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require the parsing of the bitstream if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
As per claims 3-4, the claims depend on the conditional limitation of claim 2; therefore, as explained above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claims 3-4 are not required to be performed if the recited predicate condition of claim 2 is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)).
As per claim 5, Xiu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: if a value of the first mode usage identification information is a first value, determining that the first mode usage identification information indicates that the current block uses the first intra prediction mode; and if the value of the first mode usage identification information is a second value, determining that the first mode usage identification information indicates that the current block does not use the first intra prediction mode (paragraph 0078, an additional flag derive_intra_prediction_mode_flag may be used to transmit the encoder decision to the decoder, indicating whether the current block is predicted using an intra prediction mode derived from DIMD or using an intra prediction mode explicitly signaled in the bit-stream; paragraph 0080, if the derive_intra_prediction_mode_flag is true, the intra prediction mode is derived at the decoder by module 802; otherwise, the intra prediction mode is explicitly decoded from the bit-stream. Given the intra prediction mode, a prediction signal is generated by module 806 by predicting the samples of the current block from its adjacent samples; paragraph 0094, the DIMD mode is enabled/disabled (as indicated by the flag derive_intra_prediction_mode_flag) at the CU level).
As per claims 8-9 and 13-14, the claims depend on the second conditional limitation of claim 1, which is not required to be performed as explained above; therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claims 8-9 and 13-14 are not required to be performed if the recited predicate condition of the second conditional limitation of claim 1 is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)).
As per claims 10 and 15, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 2 are applicable for claims 10 and 15.
As per claim 17, Xiu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein after determining the prediction block of the current block, the method further comprises: parsing the bitstream to determine a quantization coefficient matrix (FIG. 8; paragraph 0080, at the decoder, the bit-stream may be first parsed by the entropy decoder 804); performing inverse quantization and inverse transform on the quantization coefficient matrix to obtain a residual block of the current block (FIG. 8; paragraph 0080, The residual coefficients are then inverse quantized and inverse transformed to obtain the reconstructed residual); and obtaining a reconstructed block of the current block according to the prediction block and the residual block (FIG. 3; paragraph 0080, The prediction signal and the reconstructed residual are then added together to get the reconstructed video).
As per claim 18, Xiu discloses an encoding method, applied to an encoder, comprising:
precoding a current block by using a plurality of candidate prediction modes to determine prediction blocks corresponding to the plurality of candidate prediction modes respectively (paragraph 0008, In one exemplary method of encoding or decoding (collectively “coding”) a video in a bitstream, the video comprises a plurality of frames, each frame comprising blocks of samples. For at least a current block, a plurality of candidate intra coding modes are tested by determining a cost of using each respective candidate mode to predict samples in a template region adjacent to the current block);
determining a target prediction mode of the current block from the plurality of candidate prediction modes based on the prediction blocks corresponding to the plurality of candidate prediction modes (paragraph 0008, Based on the cost, a derived intra coding mode is selected from the plurality of candidate intra coding modes); and
predicting the current block according to the target prediction mode to determine a prediction block of the current block (paragraph 0008, The samples in the current block are predicted with intra prediction using the derived intra coding mode).
As per claim 19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 18 are applicable for claim 19; in addition, Xiu discloses a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program executable on the first processor, and the processor is configured to perform the claimed method when executing the computer program (see paragraph 0176).
As per claim 20, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20; in addition, Xiu discloses a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program executable on the second processor, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored on the memory to perform the claimed method (see paragraph 0176).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 6-7, 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiu et al. (US 2019/0166370) in view of LI et al. (US 2022/0345692) hereinafter “LI”.
As per claim 16, Xiu discloses the method of claim 15; however, Xiu does not explicitly disclose setting an initial parsing order of the current block; and determining the first intra prediction mode, the second intra prediction mode, the third intra prediction mode and the fourth intra prediction mode according to the initial parsing order, wherein the initial parsing order at least comprises one of: an order of a Decoder side Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) mode, a Template Matching Prediction (TMP) mode, a Matrix based Intra Prediction (MIP) mode and a Template based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD) mode; an order of the TMP mode, the TIMD mode, the MIP mode and the DIMD mode; or an order of the TIMD mode, the DIMD mode, the TMP mode and the MIP mode.
In the same field of endeavor, LI discloses setting an initial parsing order of the current block; and determining the first intra prediction mode, the second intra prediction mode, the third intra prediction mode and the fourth intra prediction mode according to the initial parsing order, wherein the initial parsing order at least comprises one of: an order of a Decoder side Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) mode, a Template Matching Prediction (TMP) mode, a Matrix based Intra Prediction (MIP) mode and a Template based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD) mode; an order of the TMP mode, the TIMD mode, the MIP mode and the DIMD mode; or an order of the TIMD mode, the DIMD mode, the TMP mode and the MIP mode (see paragraphs 0115 and 0121-0122, tables 1 and 2 shows parsing order of DIMD, TIMD, MRL (which is a prediction based on template matching, considered TMP) and other intra related syntax elements (such as MIP)).
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 Xiu, with those of LI, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references are related to intra modes derivation using relevant syntax elements signaled in the bitstream, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
As per claims 6 and 11, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 16 are applicable for claims 6 and 11.
As per claim 7, LI discloses determining auxiliary adjustment information of the current block, wherein the auxiliary adjustment information comprises at least one of block size information or frame type information (paragraphs 0082-0085, The controller (650) may manage operation of the video encoder (603). During coding, the controller (650) may assign to each coded picture a certain coded picture type, which may affect the coding techniques that may be applied to the respective picture. For example, pictures often may be assigned as one of the following picture types: an Intra Picture (I picture), a predictive picture (P picture), and a bi-directionally predictive picture (B Picture)); adjusting the initial parsing order according to the auxiliary adjustment information of the current block to obtain an adjusted parsing order (paragraph 0059, Reconstruction of the symbols (521) can involve multiple different units depending on the type of the coded video picture or parts thereof (such as: inter and intra picture, inter and intra block), and other factors); and determining the first intra prediction mode and the second intra prediction mode according to the adjusted parsing order (see FIG. 5, intra prediction is based on the reconstruction of the symbols (521)).
As per claim 12, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 7 are applicable for claim 12.
II. Second rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 13-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by KIM et al. (US 2024/0137560) hereinafter “KIM”.
As per claim 1, KIM discloses a decoding method, applied to a decoder, comprising:
parsing a bitstream to determine first mode usage identification information of a current block (FIG. 14; paragraphs 0185 and 0283, DIMD related information may be used. For example, the DIMD related information may include DIMD flag information indicating whether the DIMD mode is applied to the current block. In this case, the DIMD flag information may be dimdFlag…DIMD flag information may be parsed; see also paragraph 0171);
if the first mode usage identification information indicates that the current block uses a first intra prediction mode, predicting the current block according to the first intra prediction mode to determine a prediction block of the current block (paragraph 0186, when the value of the DIMD flag information is 1, the DIMD flag information may be used to indicate that an intra mode of a current coding unit (CU) will be derived using a DIMD mode operation); and
if the first mode usage identification information indicates that the current block does not use the first intra prediction mode, parsing the bitstream to determine second mode usage identification information of the current block, determining a target prediction mode of the current block according to the second mode usage identification information, and predicting the current block according to the target prediction mode to determine the prediction block of the current block (this limitation is not examined because the claim recites two conditional limitations that are mutually exclusive, such that if one is performed, then the other does not need to be performed. In Rebstock, the PTAB echoed the Schulhauser guidance, see Ex Parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016), that when there are two mutually exclusive steps (as underlined above), “the broadest reasonable interpretation of [the claim] requires performance of only one of the two mutually exclusive steps.”)
As per claim 2, KIM discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: parsing the bitstream to determine type identification information (paragraphs 0132-0133, the prediction information of S700 and the residual information of S730 may be obtained from the bitstream by the entropy decoder 310… The decoding apparatus may derive an intra prediction mode/type for the current block based on the received prediction information (intra prediction mode/type information) (S700); see also paragraphs 0137-0138);
if the type identification information indicates that the current block uses an intra prediction mode, parsing the bitstream to determine first mode permission identification information and second mode permission identification information of the current block; and in a case that the first mode permission identification information indicates that the current block is allowed to use the first intra prediction mode and the second mode permission identification information indicates that the current block is allowed to use a second intra prediction mode, performing the operation of parsing the bitstream to determine the first mode usage identification information of the current block.
The claim recites a conditional limitation, namely "if the type identification information indicates that the current block uses an intra prediction mode, parsing the bitstream to determine first mode permission identification information and second mode permission identification information of the current block." That is, the claim does not require the parsing of the bitstream if the type identification information does not indicate that the current block uses an intra prediction mode. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require the parsing of the bitstream if the recited predicate condition is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met).
As per claims 3-4, the claims depend on the conditional limitation of claim 2; therefore, as explained above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claims 3-4 are not required to be performed if the recited predicate condition of claim 2 is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)).
As per claim 5, KIM discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: if a value of the first mode usage identification information is a first value, determining that the first mode usage identification information indicates that the current block uses the first intra prediction mode; and if the value of the first mode usage identification information is a second value, determining that the first mode usage identification information indicates that the current block does not use the first intra prediction mode (paragraphs 0186-0187, when the value of the DIMD flag information is 1, the DIMD flag information may be used to indicate that an intra mode of a current coding unit (CU) will be derived using a DIMD mode operation…when the value of the DIMD flag information is 0, an intra mode for the DIMD mode is not derived).
As per claims 8-9 and 13-14, the claims depend on the second conditional limitation of claim 1, which is not required to be performed as explained above; therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations of claims 8-9 and 13-14 are not required to be performed if the recited predicate condition of the second conditional limitation of claim 1 is not met. See Cybersettle, Inc. v. Nat 'l Arbitration Forum, Inc., 243 Fed. Appx. 603,607 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (unpublished) ("It is of course true that method steps may be contingent. If the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed."); see also Applera Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 375 Fed. Appx. 12, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (unpublished) (affirming a district court's interpretation of a method claim as including a step that need not be practiced if the condition for practicing the step is not met)).
As per claims 10 and 15, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 2 are applicable for claims 10 and 15.
As per claim 17, KIM discloses the method of claim 1, wherein after determining the prediction block of the current block, the method further comprises: parsing the bitstream to determine a quantization coefficient matrix (FIG. 3; paragraph 0070, The information related to the prediction among the information decoded by the entropy decoder 310 may be provided to the predictor 330, and information on the residual on which the entropy decoding was performed in the entropy decoder 310, that is, the quantized transform coefficients and related parameter information, may be input to the dequantizer 321; see also paragraph 0132); performing inverse quantization and inverse transform on the quantization coefficient matrix to obtain a residual block of the current block (FIG. 3; paragraph 0068 and 0132, The residual processor 320 of the decoding apparatus may derive residual samples for the current block based on the residual information. Specifically, the dequantizer 321 of the residual processor 320 derives transform coefficients by performing dequantization based on the quantized transform coefficients derived based on the residual information, and the inverse transformer of the residual processor 322 may derive residual samples for the current block by performing an inverse transform on the transform coefficients); and obtaining a reconstructed block of the current block according to the prediction block and the residual block (FIG. 3; paragraph 0077, The adder 340 may generate a reconstructed signal (reconstructed picture, reconstructed block, reconstructed sample array) by adding the obtained residual signal to the prediction signal (predicted block, predicted sample array) output from the predictor (including the inter predictor 332 and/or the intra predictor 331); see also paragraph 0132).
As per claim 18, KIM discloses an encoding method, applied to an encoder, comprising:
precoding a current block by using a plurality of candidate prediction modes to determine prediction blocks corresponding to the plurality of candidate prediction modes respectively (FIG. 2; paragraph 0057, The intra predictor 222 may predict the current block by referring to the samples in the current picture. The referred samples may be located in the neighborhood of the current block or may be located apart according to the prediction mode. In the intra prediction, prediction modes may include a plurality of non-directional modes and a plurality of directional modes; see also paragraph 0149);
determining a target prediction mode of the current block from the plurality of candidate prediction modes based on the prediction blocks corresponding to the plurality of candidate prediction modes (paragraph 0125, The encoding apparatus may determine a mode/type applied to the current block from among a plurality of intra prediction modes/types. The encoding apparatus may compare RD costs for intra prediction modes/types and determine an optimal intra prediction mode/type for the current block; see also paragraph 0149); and
predicting the current block according to the target prediction mode to determine a prediction block of the current block (FIG. 2; paragraph 0124, The encoding apparatus performs intra prediction on the current block (S500). The encoding apparatus may derive an intra prediction mode/type for the current block, derive neighboring reference samples of the current block, and generate prediction samples within the current block based on the intra prediction mode/type and the neighboring reference samples; see also paragraph 0156).
As per claim 19, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 18 are applicable for claim 19; in addition, KIM discloses a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program executable on the first processor, and the processor is configured to perform the claimed method when executing the computer program (see paragraph 0356).
As per claim 20, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20; in addition, KIM discloses a memory and a processor, wherein the memory is configured to store a computer program executable on the second processor, and the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored on the memory to perform the claimed method (see paragraph 0356).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 6-7, 11-12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (US 2024/0137560) in view of LI et al. (US 2022/0345692) hereinafter “LI”.
As per claim 16, KIM discloses the method of claim 15; however, KIM does not explicitly disclose setting an initial parsing order of the current block; and determining the first intra prediction mode, the second intra prediction mode, the third intra prediction mode and the fourth intra prediction mode according to the initial parsing order, wherein the initial parsing order at least comprises one of: an order of a Decoder side Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) mode, a Template Matching Prediction (TMP) mode, a Matrix based Intra Prediction (MIP) mode and a Template based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD) mode; an order of the TMP mode, the TIMD mode, the MIP mode and the DIMD mode; or an order of the TIMD mode, the DIMD mode, the TMP mode and the MIP mode.
In the same field of endeavor, LI discloses setting an initial parsing order of the current block; and determining the first intra prediction mode, the second intra prediction mode, the third intra prediction mode and the fourth intra prediction mode according to the initial parsing order, wherein the initial parsing order at least comprises one of: an order of a Decoder side Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) mode, a Template Matching Prediction (TMP) mode, a Matrix based Intra Prediction (MIP) mode and a Template based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD) mode; an order of the TMP mode, the TIMD mode, the MIP mode and the DIMD mode; or an order of the TIMD mode, the DIMD mode, the TMP mode and the MIP mode (see paragraphs 0115 and 0121-0122, tables 1 and 2 shows parsing order of DIMD, TIMD, MRL (which is a prediction based on template matching, considered TMP) and other intra related syntax elements (such as MIP)).
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 KIM, with those of LI, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because indeed both references are related to intra modes derivation using relevant syntax elements signaled in the bitstream, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result.
As per claims 6 and 11, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 16 are applicable for claims 6 and 11.
As per claim 7, LI discloses determining auxiliary adjustment information of the current block, wherein the auxiliary adjustment information comprises at least one of block size information or frame type information (paragraphs 0082-0085, The controller (650) may manage operation of the video encoder (603). During coding, the controller (650) may assign to each coded picture a certain coded picture type, which may affect the coding techniques that may be applied to the respective picture. For example, pictures often may be assigned as one of the following picture types: an Intra Picture (I picture), a predictive picture (P picture), and a bi-directionally predictive picture (B Picture)); adjusting the initial parsing order according to the auxiliary adjustment information of the current block to obtain an adjusted parsing order (paragraph 0059, Reconstruction of the symbols (521) can involve multiple different units depending on the type of the coded video picture or parts thereof (such as: inter and intra picture, inter and intra block), and other factors); and determining the first intra prediction mode and the second intra prediction mode according to the adjusted parsing order (see FIG. 5, intra prediction is based on the reconstruction of the symbols (521)).
As per claim 12, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 7 are applicable for claim 12.
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (US 20240244191, US 20230049154, US 20240236368, US 20240195982, US 20240114131, US 20230114696, US 20240275941, US 20240187576, US 20230396805, US 20220417511, US 20220345691, US 20240275943, US 20240373036).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482