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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, 11, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0217030 A1 (“Li”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of decoding an image, the method comprising: constructing a histogram (e.g. see histogram, paragraphs [0104]-[0107]) of a current chroma block (e.g. see current chroma block, e.g. as shown in Figs. 6C-6D, paragraphs [0104]-[0107]) based on reconstruction samples included in a reference region of the current chroma block (e.g. see reconstructed samples, e.g. as shown in Figs. 6B-6D, paragraphs [0104]-[0107]); deriving an intra prediction mode from the histogram of for a the current chroma block (e.g. see select the intra prediction mode corresponding to the largest histogram amplitude value as the intra prediction mode of the current chroma block, paragraphs [0104]-[0107]); and based on the intra prediction mode, performing an intra prediction on the current chroma block (e.g. see intra prediction, e.g. see 158 in Fig. 1B), wherein the reference region comprises a luma reference region adjacent to a collocated luma block of the current chroma block, the luma reference region comprises a top reference region adjacent to the collocated luma block and a left reference region adjacent to the collocated luma block (e.g. see collocated luma block-adjacent luma reconstructed samples including L-shaped template, e.g. as shown in Fig. 6B, including upper and left reconstructed samples adjacent to the luma block, paragraphs [0104]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 6, Li further discloses wherein: the histogram is constructed by accumulating an amplitude of a reference sample per intra prediction mode (e.g. see histogram contains cumulative values of gradient intensities for each intra angular prediction mode, paragraphs [0092]-[0094] and see select the intra prediction mode corresponding to the largest histogram amplitude value as the intra prediction mode of the current chroma block, paragraphs [0104]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 7, Li further discloses wherein an intra prediction mode with a largest amplitude is derived from the histogram (e.g. see histogram contains cumulative values of gradient intensities for each intra angular prediction mode, paragraphs [0092]-[0094] and see select the intra prediction mode corresponding to the largest histogram amplitude value as the intra prediction mode of the current chroma block, paragraphs [0104]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 8, Li further discloses wherein a final prediction block of the current block is obtained based on a weighted sum operation of the plurality of intermediate prediction blocks, one of the plurality of intermediate prediction blocks being obtained based on the intra prediction mode derived from the histogram (e.g. see fusion, e.g. see Fig. 5, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], [0129]-[0130], [0145]).
Regarding claim 16, Li further discloses wherein in response to the intra prediction mode with the largest amplitude being the same as a pre-derived intra prediction mode, an intra prediction mode with the second largest amplitude is derived from the histogram (e.g. see paragraph [0147]).
Regarding claim 17, Li further discloses wherein the pre-derived intra prediction mode is a DM (Direct Mode) which represents an intra prediction mode of the collocated luma block (e.g. see paragraph [0147]).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US 2024/0380885 A1 (“Dumas”).
Regarding claim 3, Li discloses wherein an intra prediction mode of a reference sample in the reference region is obtained based on a ratio between a horizontal gradient and a vertical gradient of the reference sample (e.g. see calculation of orientation which is the ratio of Gy and Gx, paragraphs [0104]-[0107]).
Although Li discloses the ratio between the horizontal gradient and the vertical gradient of the reference samples, it is noted Li differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose a ratio between an absolute value of a horizontal gradient and an absolute value of a vertical gradient. Dumas however, teaches a ratio between an absolute value of a horizontal gradient and an absolute value of a vertical gradient (e.g. see comparison of absolute value of vertical gradient GVER and horizontal gradient GHOR, paragraphs [0050]-[0051], [0071]-[0073]).
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 Li and Dumas before him/her, to modify the Decoder side chroma intra prediction mode gradient-based derivation of Li with the teachings of Dumas in order to enhance DIMD to fix limited extent and discontinuities in the angle discretization.
Regarding claim 4, Li further discloses wherein an amplitude of the reference sample is derived as a sum of the absolute value of the horizontal gradient and the absolute value of the vertical gradient of the reference sample (e.g. see calculation of intensity which is a sum of absolute values of Gx and Gy, paragraphs [0104]-[0107]).
Regarding claim 5, Li further discloses wherein: the horizontal gradient and the vertical gradient of the reference sample are obtained by applying a filter to the reference sample, and wherein the filter is a Sobel mask or a Prewitt mask (e.g. see Sobel filters, paragraphs [0104]-[0107]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, 11, 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2017/0302962 A1, Shen et al., Rapid selection method for video intra prediction mode and apparatus thereof
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