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 § 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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0038691 A1 (“Li”) in view of US 2021/0051334 A1 (“Ahn”) in further view of US 2018/0332282 A1 (“He”).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method performed by a video decoding device (e.g. see decoding apparatus, e.g. see 300 in Fig. 3) for decoding an intra-prediction mode of a current block, the method comprising:
generating a most probable mode list (MPM list) including most probable mode candidates (MPM candidates) (e.g. see generating initial MPM list including candidate modes from neighboring blocks, planar and DC modes, paragraphs [0102]-[0105]);
determining, among the MPM candidates, redundant prediction modes that are intra prediction modes but generate a common predictor for the current block (e.g. see pruning process performed to remove redundant modes in the (initial) MPM list, paragraphs [0102]-[0105]);
determining a representative mode among the redundant prediction modes; and
reorganizing the MPM list by removing redundant prediction modes other than the representative mode (e.g. see the initial MPM list configured in the order of the intra prediction mode of the left neighboring block A, top neighboring block B, planar mode, DC mode, bottom-left neighboring block D and top-left neighboring block E; the initial MPM list is then pruned, and then, derived and/or default intra modes are added if the number of candidates in the MPM list is less than a predetermined number, paragraphs [0102]-[0105]; for example, if the modes of B and D are determined to be the same as the mode of A (i.e. modes of B and D are redundant modes) in the initial MPM list, then the pruning process removes mode B and mode D (since they are lower order/priority) and retains mode A in the list, i.e. the representative mode, and then, derived and/or default modes are added so that the final MPM list becomes composed of a predetermined number, e.g. 6, unique/non-redundant candidate modes).
Although Li discloses determining, among the MPM candidates, redundant prediction modes that are intra prediction modes but generate a common predictor for the current block, it is noted Li differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose determining a type of the current block based on a position of the current block; determining, based on the type of the current block, redundant prediction modes that are intra prediction modes but generate a common predictor for the current block.
Ahn however, teaches determining a type of the current block based on a position of the current block (e.g. see determining non-available case, i.e. a type of current block where its neighboring block(s) is/are not available, e.g. based on determining when the current block is adjacent to the top boundary of the CTU, paragraph [0118]); determining, based on the type of the current block, redundant prediction modes that are intra prediction modes but generate a common predictor for the current block (e.g. see determining non-available case, i.e. a type of current block where its neighboring block(s) is/are not available, e.g. based on determining when the current block is adjacent to the top boundary of the CTU, paragraph [0118]; thus, given the teachings of Ahn, it would be obvious to incorporate the determination of non-available case into the MPM list generation as disclosed by Li resulting in the disclosed pruning process to be based on the determination of non-available case).
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 Ahn before him/her, to modify the Intra prediction method and apparatus in image coding system of Li with the teachings of Ahn of in order to provide an image encoding/decoding method and apparatus for performing intra prediction with improved efficiency.
Further, although Li in view of Ahn teaches determining, among the MPM candidates and based on the type of the current block, redundant prediction modes that are intra prediction modes but generate a common predictor for the current block, it is noted Li differs from the present invention in that it fails to particularly disclose redundant prediction modes that are intra prediction modes distinct from each other but generate a common predictor for the current block. He however, teaches redundant prediction modes that are intra prediction modes distinct from each other but generate a common predictor for the current block (e.g. see redundant blocks are blocks that are identical or so close that they are less than a threshold different from each other, paragraph [0054], and see based on the fact that there are redundant blocks generated by two or more intra modes in the set of possible intra modes, in one aspect, the present application proposes to reduce the set by removing one or more redundant intra modes as candidates, paragraph [0057]; thus, given the teachings of He, it would be obvious to also remove/prune modes in the MPM list, as disclosed by Li, not only identical modes but also different/distinct modes that are redundant nevertheless because they produce redundant prediction blocks).
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, Ahn and He before him/her, to incorporate the teachings of He into the Intra prediction method and apparatus in image coding system of Li as modified by Ahn of in order to reduce redundancies in prediction blocks to improve intra coding.
Regarding claim 2, Li further discloses further comprising: decoding from a bitstream a most probable mode index (MPM index) of the current block (e.g. see MPM index, paragraph [0087]); and determining from a reorganized MPM list an intra-prediction mode of the current block by using the MPM index (e.g. see select one of the MPM candidates in the MPM list based on the received MPM index, paragraph [0097]).
Regarding claim 3, Li further discloses further comprising: adding a new MPM candidate to a reorganized MPM list by using non-redundant prediction modes based on the type of the current block (e.g. see the initial MPM list configured in the order of the intra prediction mode of the left neighboring block A, top neighboring block B, planar mode, DC mode, bottom-left neighboring block D and top-left neighboring block E; the initial MPM list is then pruned, and then, derived and/or default intra modes are added if the number of candidates in the MPM list is less than a predetermined number, paragraphs [0102]-[0105]; for example, if the modes of B and D are determined to be the same as the mode of A (i.e. modes of B and D are redundant modes) in the initial MPM list, then the pruning process removes mode B and mode D (since they are lower order/priority) and retains mode A in the list, i.e. the representative mode, and then, derived and/or default modes are added so that the final MPM list becomes composed of a predetermined number, e.g. 6, unique/non-redundant candidate modes).
Regarding claim 4, Li further discloses further comprising: decoding a flag indicating whether the MPM list is to be used (e.g. see MPM flag, paragraph [0100]); and checking the flag (e.g. see if MPM flag value is 1, then intra prediction mode of the current block is included in the MPM candidates (MPM list), and if the MPM flag value is 0, then the intra prediction mode of the current block is not included in the MPM candidates (MPM list), paragraph [0100]); wherein when the flag is true, the method further comprises: generating the MPM list (e.g. see MPM list derivation, paragraphs [0102]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 8, Li further discloses wherein the representative mode comprises: one or more of the redundant prediction modes including a prediction mode having an angle or prediction mode index that is smallest or largest, a prediction mode having the MPM index that is smallest or largest, a most used prediction mode among prediction modes used by previous blocks, or a preset prediction mode (e.g. see the initial MPM list configured in the order of the intra prediction mode of the left neighboring block A, top neighboring block B, planar mode, DC mode, bottom-left neighboring block D and top-left neighboring block E; the initial MPM list is then pruned, and then, derived and/or default intra modes are added if the number of candidates in the MPM list is less than a predetermined number, paragraphs [0102]-[0105]; for example, if the modes of B and D are determined to be the same as the mode of A (i.e. modes of B and D are redundant modes) in the initial MPM list, then the pruning process removes mode B and mode D (since they are lower order/priority) and retains mode A in the list, i.e. the representative mode, and then, derived and/or default modes are added so that the final MPM list becomes composed of a predetermined number, e.g. 6, unique/non-redundant candidate modes).
Regarding claims 14, 19-20, the claims recite analogous limitations to the claims above and are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9-13, 15-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 14 and 20 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 2020/0162729 A1, Lee et al., Image processing method, and image encoding/decoding method and device which use same
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
Prosecution Insights