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 .
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.
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) 20-24, 26-30 and 32-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (U.S. 2022/0159263), hereinafter Wang in view of Pfaff et al. (WO 2021/198402), hereinafter Pfaff.
Regarding claims 20 and 26, Wang discloses a decoder for decoding a picture, the decoder configured to:
determine that matrix based intra prediction (MIP) mode is used to predict a block of a first color component of the picture (Wang [0044] and [0050]);
decode a first value representing intra prediction mode for a block of a second color component of the picture (Wang p. 3, Table 20);
determine a second value based on a partitioning tree type and an integer relating a sampling of the block of the second color component relative to a sampling of the block of the first color component (Wang [0044], p. 2, Table 1 and p. 3, Table 20);
determine to use a planar intra prediction mode to predict the block of the second color component, based on the first value and the second value (Wang [0050], p. 3, Table 20 and fig. 9).
Wang does not explicitly disclose predict the block of the first color component using the MIP mode and the block of the second color component using the planar intra prediction mode.
However, Pfaff teaches predict the block of the first color component using the MIP mode and the block of the second color component using the planar intra prediction mode (Pfaff p. 62, lines 13-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s decoder with the missing limitations as taught by Pfaff to improve coding efficiency reduce bit stream and thus a signalization cost (Pfaff p. 1, lines 21-24).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency by using different modes applicable to each situation.
Regarding claims 21, 27 and 33, Wang in view of Pfaff teaches the decoder of Claim 20, wherein the decoder is configured to:
determine, based on the integer, that the block of the first color component and the block of the second color component are related using 4-4-4 sampling (Wang [0044] and p. 2, Table 1).
Regarding claims 22, 28 and 34, Wang in view of Pfaff teaches the decoder of Claim 20, wherein:
the first color component is a luma component (Wang [0036]),
the second color component is a chroma component (Wang [0036]), and
the partitioning tree type is single tree (Wang [0044]).
Regarding claims 23, 29 and 35, Wang in view of Pfaff teaches the decoder of Claim 20, wherein the decoder is configured to:
use the first value and the second value as input parameters for a lookup table (Wang p. 3, Table 20); and
determine to use the planar intra prediction mode to predict the block of the second color component using the input parameters with the lookup table (Wang p. 3, Table 20 and fig. 9).
Regarding claims 24, 30 and 36, Wang in view of Pfaff teaches the decoder of Claim 20, wherein the decoder is configured to:
derive a value for a Mip chroma direct flag (Wang [0043]); and
in response to a determination that the value of the Mip chroma direct flag having is zero, determine to use the planar intra prediction mode to predict the block of the second color component (Wang [0047]-[0049] and p. 3, Table 20 and Pfaff p. 62, lines 13-19).
The same motivation for claim 20 applies to claims 24, 30 and 36.
Regarding claim 32, Wang in view of Pfaff teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed cause at least one processor to (Wang [0132]): determine that matrix based intra prediction (MIP) mode is used to predict a block of a first color component of the picture; decode a first value representing intra prediction mode for a block of a second color component of the picture; determine a second value based on a partitioning tree type and an integer relating a sampling of the block of the second color component relative to a sampling of the block of the first color component; determine to use a planar intra prediction mode to predict the block of the second color component, based on the first value and the second value; and predict the block of the first color component using the MIP mode and the block of the second color component using the planar intra prediction mode (see claim 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25, 31 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koo et al. (U.S. 2023/0143945) teaches similar intra MIP processes (pgs. 16 and 19, Tables).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482