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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Remarks
This communication is in response to the Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on 12/20/2024. Claims 1-28 were pending. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 24 and 26-27 are amended. Claims 5, 8, 15-23, 25 and 28 are canceled. Claims 29-33 are added. Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-14, 24, 26-27 and 29-33.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 24, 26 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 24, 26 and 27 are written in the form of dependent claims to the claims 1, 3 and 2 (respectively). However, claims 24, 26 and 27 directed to the different statutory than claims 1, 3 and 2. If Applicant would like claims 24, 26 and 27 to be treated as an independent or dependent claims to claims 1-3, appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14, 24, 26-27, 29-30 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CHOI et al. (US 20210344929 A1, hereinafter refer to as “CHOI”).
Regarding claim 1. (Currently amended) CHOI discloses a method, comprising, for at least one block of an image or a video:
decoding an indicator indicating a first intra prediction mode (0392; Figure 27; ‘2702’),
determining whether the first intra prediction mode is to be combined with a second intra prediction mode for obtaining a prediction of the at least one block (0283; Figure 18),
responsive to the determination that the first intra prediction mode is to be combined with a second intra prediction mode, obtaining the second intra prediction mode (0283; Figure 18; “[0283] … remaining intra prediction modes may include combined prediction modes for predicting a current block by combining prediction values of two or more intra prediction modes. … according to a combined prediction mode for which a vertical mode and a horizontal mode are combined, prediction values of respective samples may be determined by averaging a prediction value according to the vertical mode and a prediction value according to the horizontal mode. ...”), and
decoding the at least one block based on a combination of the first intra prediction mode and the second intra prediction mode (0283; Figure 18).
Regarding claim 2. (Currently amended) Apparatus claim 2 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, apparatus claim 2 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 3. (Currently amended) The encoding method claim 3 is drawn to the reverse method of the encoding method of using the corresponding decoding method claimed in claim 1. Therefore encoding method claim 3 corresponds to decoding claim 1 and is rejected for same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 4. (Currently amended) Apparatus claim 4 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 3. Therefore, apparatus claim 4 corresponds to method claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 6. (Currently amended) CHOI discloses the method of any claim 1, wherein one of the first intra prediction mode or the second intra prediction mode is obtained from among a set of non-directional intra prediction modes, and the other of the first intra prediction mode and the second intra prediction mode is obtained from among a set of directional intra prediction modes (0218, 0266 and 0269; Figures 17-18; wherein the directional method is like diagonal, horizontal, vertical and the non-directional method is like DC, Planar, Smooth).
Regarding claim 7. (Currently amended) CHOI discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first intra prediction mode is one of an intra block copy prediction mode or a matrix-based intra prediction mode (0277; Figure 18; “… the number of MPMs included in the MPM list may be determined, according to a size of the current block. Also, when a particular intra mode tool is applied to the current block, the number of MPMs included in the MPM list may be determined, according to a size of the current block. For example, when a Matrix-based Intra Prediction (MIP) mode is applied to the current block, the number of MPMs included in the MPM list may be determined, according to a size and/or a shape of the current block.”).
Regarding claims 9 and 12. (Currently amended) CHOI discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first intra prediction mode or the second intra prediction mode is signaled in a bitstream, wherein an indicator indicating whether the second intra prediction mode is obtained from a decoder side intra mode derivation or a template based intra mode derivation is signaled in a bitstream (0264; Figure 18; “[0264] When the intra prediction mode of the current block is one in the MPM list, an amount of bits required to signal the intra prediction mode of the current block may be decreased. For example, when the number of all intra prediction modes is 67, at least 7 bits are required to signal one of 67 intra prediction modes. However, when 5 or 6 MPM lists are used, there is a high probability that the intra prediction mode of the current block is determined to be one in the MPM lists, and even when the intra prediction mode of the current block is not included in the MPM lists, the rest of intra prediction modes may be signaled by using only 6 bits except for 5 or 6 MPM lists. ...”).
Regarding claim 10. (Currently amended) CHOI discloses the method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the second intra prediction mode comprises deriving the second intra prediction mode from one or more reconstructed samples neighboring the at least one block (0253 and 0257; Figure 20; “[0253] In operation 2040, whether an upper-left block and/or a lower-right block of the current block has been reconstructed is determined. For example, when a width of the current block is greater than its height, whether an upper-right adjacent block of the current block has been decoded may be determined. Alternatively, when a height of the current block is greater than its width, whether a lower-left adjacent block of the current block has been decoded may be determined. When the upper-left block and/or the lower-right block of the current block has not been reconstructed, operation 2050 is performed. ...”).
Regarding claim 13. (Currently amended) CHOI discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the determination that the first intra prediction mode is to be combined with the second intra prediction mode is based on an indicator signaled for the at least one block in a bitstream (0264 and 0314; Figures 18 and 21).
Regarding claim 14. (Currently amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the determination that the first intra prediction mode is to be combined with the second intra prediction mode for the at least one block is based on a cost obtained when determining the second intra prediction mode (inherent for choosing the best mode to use when there is multiple choice, such as the TIMD and SATD).
Regarding claim 24. (Currently amended) A non-transitory computer readable medium claim 24 is drawn to the non-transitory computer readable medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, non-transitory computer readable medium claim 24 corresponds to the method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claim 26. (Currently amended) Claim 26 is directed to a non-transitory medium storing bitstream and the body of the claim recites steps/elements that describe how the bitstream is generated. These steps are not performed by an intended computer, and the video is not a form of programming that causes functions to be performed by an intended computer. This shows that the computer-readable medium merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the steps/elements that describe the generation of the bitstream and intended computer system. As result, the claim limitations that describe the generation of the bitstream are non-functional descriptive material (see MPEP §2113 and §2111.05(III)) and are afforded no patentable weight. The claim scope is a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by CHOI which recites a storage medium storing bitstream (0045 and 0369).
Regarding claim 27. (Currently amended) Device claim 27 is drawn to the device corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 2. Therefore, device claim 27 corresponds to method claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Regarding claims 29-30 and 32-33. (New) Apparatus claims 29-30 and 32-33 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 6-7 and 13-14. Therefore, apparatus claims 29-30 and 32-33 correspond to method claims 6-7 and 13-14 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOI as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of XU (US 20210344929 A1, hereinafter refer to as “XU”).
Regarding claim 11. (Currently amended) CHOI discloses the method of claim 1, but failed to disclose wherein the second intra prediction mode is obtained from at least one of a decoder side intra mode derivation or a template based intra mode derivation.
XU, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows wherein the second intra prediction mode is obtained from at least one of a decoder side intra mode derivation or a template based intra mode derivation (0118-0119, 0123-0124 and 0175; Figures 7 and 8; “[0118] In the intra encoding of the ECM, similar to VTM (which is a reference software test platform of the VVC), there are traditional intra prediction, residual transform and other processes. Different from the VVC, during the intra prediction, two technologies (i.e., Decoder-side Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) and Template-based Intra Mode Derivation (TIMD)) are adopted to derive intra prediction modes. [0119] The DIMD and TIMD technologies can derive intra prediction mode at decoding end, thus omitting the encoding of the indexes of intra prediction modes, so as to save code words.”).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the derivation of DIMD and/or TIMD of Xu in the CHOI in order to improve the cost effective video coding.
Regarding claim 31. (New) Apparatus claim 31 is drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claim 11. Therefore, apparatus claim 31 corresponds to method claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-9205. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2482