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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not disclose an embodiment in which the “candidate prediction list is constructed to include a predefined number of sets having smaller costs among the plurality of sets.” The candidates are based on pre-selected MPMs that are not based on cost, and pre-selected reference lines that are not based on cost. The optimal set is selected based on cost. Meanwhile, there is no embodiment in which the candidate set is constructed based on cost.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no discussion of “sequentially search[ing]” in the as-filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Limitation “template of the current block and reconstructed samples of the template” is unclear because all templates are reconstructed samples. It does not make sense to distinguish the “template” from “reconstructed samples of the template.”
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
The language “a collocated luma region, including the current block, of a chroma is larger than the current block” is unclear. Is the current block the luma block or the chroma block? How can the current block also be the collocated block, and how can a current block that is also the collocated block be larger than itself?
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)(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.
(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) 1-3, 9-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404).
Regarding Claim 1, Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) discloses a method of decoding an image (JVET intra prediction, Title), the method comprising:
calculating a cost (calculate cost [0095], Fig. 12 step 1208) for each of a plurality of sets (for an intra prediction mode and a reference line [0095], Fig. 12 step 1206), each set comprising an intra prediction mode (intra prediction mode [0095]-[0096], Fig. 12 steps 1206-1212) and a reference sample line (reference line [0095], [0097], Fig. 12 steps 1206-1212, Figs. 13-14);
determining an optimal set (candidate prediction template 900 that best matched one of the actual CU templates 800 [0100], Fig. 12 step 1214) of an intra prediction mode and a reference sample line for a current block (candidate prediction template 900b being generated with pixel values derived from pixel values of search window 804b associated with reference line 1300b according to a directional intra prediction mode [0094]);
and performing, based on the optimal set of the intra prediction mode and the reference sample line (use the intra prediction mode selected during step 1214 [0101], Fig. 12 step 1216), an intra prediction (generate a prediction CU 626 with intra prediction [0101]) on the current block (decoding position [0090], Fig. 13), wherein each of the plurality of sets comprises one of a plurality of candidate intra prediction modes and one of a plurality of candidate reference sample lines (for some or all JVET intra prediction modes [0096] repeated for each reference line [0097], Fig. 12 steps 1206-1212), and
wherein a cost of each of the sets is calculated based on a difference (SAD, SSD, SATD, RDO [0095]) between prediction samples obtained by performing intra prediction (candidate prediction template 900 being generated with pixel values derived from pixel values of search window 804b associated with reference line 1300b according to a directional intra prediction mode [0094]), based on a set of a candidate intra prediction mode and a candidate reference sample line (candidate templates 900 based on the candidate intra prediction mode and candidate reference line [0094]-[0099], Fig. 12), on a template of the current block (candidate templates 900 based on the candidate intra prediction mode and candidate reference line [0094]-[0099], Fig. 12) and reconstructed samples of the template (CU templates 800, the template is in the decoded area 802 away from the current decoding position [0091]).
Regarding Claim 2, Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of candidate intra prediction modes include MPMs (Most Probable Modes) included in an MPM list (candidates are MPMs [0041]).
Regarding Claim 3, Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the template is composed of a top reconstrued region adjacent to the current block (template’s row [0091], Fig. 13) and a left reconstrued region adjacent to the current block (template’s column [0091], Fig. 13).
Regarding Claim 9, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 15, Panusopone discloses a computer readable medium that stores a bitstream (output of the encoding information by the general processor may be stored in a buffer, such as output buffer 1926 [0119]). The remainder of Claim 15 has not patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05.
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) 5, 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) in view of Jun (US PG Publication 2020/0366900).
Regarding Claim 5, Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) discloses the method of claim 1, …wherein the optimal set is selected (candidate prediction template 900 that best matched one of the actual CU templates 800 [0100], Fig. 12 step 1214) from the candidate prediction list (set of six most probable modes (MPMs) for the CU [0041]).
Panusopone does not disclose, but Jun (US PG Publication 2020/0366900) teaches wherein a candidate prediction list is constructed to include a predefined number of sets having a smaller cost (after the calculated SAD and/or SATD are arranged in increasing order, M intra-prediction blocks in order of increasing SAD and/or SATD may be defined as intermediate intra-prediction blocks. Herein, M is a positive integer equal to or greater than 1 and may be less than or equal to the maximum number of candidate modes configuring the MPM list [0517])
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to apply the luma intra prediction modes to the chroma block because corresponding luma and chroma blocks represent the same part of the scene and are expected to relate to neighboring blocks similarly, and Jun suggests that treating them the same is expected enhance compression efficiency [0006].
Regarding Claim 13, the claim is rejected on the grounds provided in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) discloses the method of claim 1.
Panusopone does not disclose, but Jun (US PG Publication 2020/0366900) teaches wherein, when a collocated luma region, including the current block, of a chroma block is larger than the current block (a sample ratio of color components is 4:2:0, and at least one of luma blocks A, B, C, and D corresponds to one chroma block [0317], Fig. 13), a plurality of predefined positions within the collocated luma region are sequentially searched (The order of deriving the MPM candidate mode from the neighboring blocks may be arbitrarily set by the encoder/decoder. For example, the MPM candidate modes may be derived in the order of a left block L, a top block A, a lower left block BL, an upper right block AR, and an upper left block AL [0284]), and luma intra prediction modes derived by the sequential search are added to an intra prediction mode candidate list of the chroma block (MPM candidates of the chroma block may include intra prediction modes of luma blocks corresponding to the chroma block [0331]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to apply the luma intra prediction modes to the chroma block because corresponding luma and chroma blocks represent the same part of the scene and are expected to relate to neighboring blocks similarly, and Jun suggests that treating them the same is expected enhance compression efficiency [0006].
Regarding Claim 17, Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) discloses the method of claim 16.
Panusopone does not disclose, but Jun (US PG Publication 2020/0366900) teaches wherein, the plurality of predefined positions comprises a top-left position, a top-right position, a center position, a bottom-left position and a bottom-right position of the collocated luma region (The order of deriving the MPM candidate mode from the neighboring blocks may be arbitrarily set by the encoder/decoder. For example, the MPM candidate modes may be derived in the order of a left block L, a top block A, a lower left block BL, an upper right block AR, and an upper left block AL [0284]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to apply the luma intra prediction modes to the chroma block because corresponding luma and chroma blocks represent the same part of the scene and are expected to relate to neighboring blocks similarly, and Jun suggests that treating them the same is expected enhance compression efficiency [0006].
Regarding Claim 18, Panusopone (US PG Publication 2017/0339404) discloses the method of claim 16, … wherein a cost of each luma intra prediction mode is calculated by performing intra prediction on the collocated luma region (SAD, SSD, SATD, RDO [0095]; candidate prediction template 900 being generated with pixel values derived from pixel values of search window 804b associated with reference line 1300b according to a directional intra prediction mode [0094]).
Panosupone does not disclose, but Jun (US PG Publication 2020/0366900) teaches wherein the luma intra prediction modes are sorted based on costs thereof (after the calculated SAD and/or SATD are arranged in increasing order, M intra-prediction blocks in order of increasing SAD and/or SATD may be defined as intermediate intra-prediction blocks. Herein, M is a positive integer equal to or greater than 1 and may be less than or equal to the maximum number of candidate modes configuring the MPM list [0517]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed would have been motivated to apply the luma intra prediction modes to the chroma block because corresponding luma and chroma blocks represent the same part of the scene and are expected to relate to neighboring blocks similarly, and Jun suggests that treating them the same is expected enhance compression efficiency [0006].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 12/26/2025 are moot because they do not pertain to the grounds of rejection presented in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20250119548 A1
US 20240380879 A1
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 SHADAN E HAGHANI whose telephone number is (571)270-5631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
/SHADAN E HAGHANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2485