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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This office action for US Patent application 18/857334 is responsive to communications filed on O 14th, 2024. Currently, claims 1-11 are pending are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
2. On pages 7-8, applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 have been considered. The applicant is arguing that Li fails to disclose, teach or suggest “insert candidates into the MPM list according to offset distances”. Simply adding offsets discloses or suggests nothing about the manner in which the candidates are inserted. While applicant’s arguments have been considered and understood, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The reason is that the candidates inserted into the MPM list according to the offset distances can be interpreted the candidates inserted into the MPM list according to the offsets in range of -3 to 3 by Li. The examiner does not see any significant difference between the offset distances and the offsets disclosed by Li. Therefore, the prior art Li still meets limitations of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C §102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Li et al. (US 20220201281 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. (US 20220201281 A1) meets the claim limitations, as follows:
A method of video coding, the method comprising:
receiving pixel data associated with a current block at an encoder side or coded data associated with the current block to be decoded at a decoder side [i.e. Fig. 3-4];
determining an initial MPM (Most Probable Modes) list for the current block, wherein the initial MPM list comprises MPM1 candidate and MPM2 candidate [i.e. the MPM list has a list of candidates; paragraph. 0050. Fig. 11];
generating a plurality of alternative first candidates by adding one or more first offset distances to the MPM1 candidate [i.e. add a plurality of offsets in range of -3 to 3 to all the candidates in the MPM list; paragraph. 0050, Fig. 11];
generating a plurality of alternative second candidates by adding one or more second offset distances to the MPM2 candidate [i.e. add a plurality of offsets in range of -3 to 3 to all the candidates in the MPM list; paragraph. 0050, Fig. 11];
inserting at least one of the plurality of alternative first candidates and at least one of the plurality of alternative second candidates into the initial MPM list, according to offset distances associated with said at least one of the plurality of alternative first candidates and said at least one of the plurality of alternative second candidates, to form an extended MPM list [i.e. the list with added candidates from offsets; paragraph. 0050-0051]; and
encoding or decoding the current block by using information comprising the extended MPM list [i.e. code a block using DIMD derived mode in the MPM list for intra prediction; paragraph. 0123].
Regarding claim 2, Li et al. (US 20220201281 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Li et al. (US 20220201281 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1, wherein said at least one of the plurality of alternative first candidates and said at least one of the plurality of alternative second candidates are inserted into the MPM list with constraints [i.e. the list excludes intra modes with sum of intensity values equal to 0 or less than a threshold; paragraph. 0053].
Regarding claim 6, Li et al. (US 20220201281 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 2.
Furthermore, Li et al. (US 20220201281 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 2, wherein the constraints comprise block aspect ratio of the current block [i.e. the DIMD list for a current block; paragraph. 0033].
Regarding claim 9, Li et al. (US 20220201281 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Li et al. (US 20220201281 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1, wherein said at least one of the plurality of alternative first candidates and said at least one of the plurality of alternative second candidates are inserted into the initial MPM according to an increasing order of offset distances associated with said at least one of the plurality of alternative first candidates and said at least one of the plurality of alternative second candidates [i.e. add plurality of offsets in range of -3 to 3 to all the candidates in the list; paragraph. 0050].
Regarding claim 10, Li et al. (US 20220201281 A1) discloses the following claim limitations as set forth in claim 1.
Furthermore, Li et al. (US 20220201281 A1) discloses the claim limitations as follows:
The method of Claim 1 further comprises performing pruning or redundancy checking to the extended MPM list after said inserting said at least one of the plurality of alternative first candidates and said at least one of the plurality of alternative second candidates [i.e. each candidate added into the MPM list may be pruned to avoid duplicate modes added into the MPM list; paragraph. 0057].
Regarding claim 11, all the claim limitations which are set forth and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7-8 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.
New Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) AT 866-217-9197 (too free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487