DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180205946 A1 (hereinafter Zhang)
US 20220224922 A1 (Wang)
US 20200260096 A1 (hereinafter Ikai)
WO 2020116848 A1 (corresponding family member US 20220021902 A1 as English translation; Fig.12 teaches constructing chroma intra prediction list, Fig.11, 13, 15 & 17 shows position of corresponding luma locations )
US 20190281292 A1 (Para 45; table 15, DM, LM and other mode index)
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Rejection made under 35 USC § 101 have been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claim.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection
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.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang.
Zhang teaches, with regards to claim 9. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores a bitstream generated by the image encoding method according to claim 8. [(See para 34)]
It should be noted that:
This is a product by process claim. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable storage medium” merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream in the claim merely provide a support for the storage of the bitstream and have no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the claim scope is just a computer-readable storage medium.
Examiner suggest amending the claim A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that storing computer executable program, when executed by a processor performs the method of claim 8. Assuming specification have the support.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wang.
Regarding Claim 1. Zhang teaches An image decoding method [(Fig.13 para 169)] comprising: configuring a candidate list of a current chroma block based on an intra prediction mode of a luma block corresponding to the current chroma block [(para 169 “video decoder 300 initially constructs an intra-prediction candidate list for a current chroma block”; “add a first set of one or more angular intra-prediction modes to the intra-prediction candidate list corresponding to angular intra-prediction modes of one or more neighboring blocks to the current chroma block or a luma block co-located with the current chroma block”)] : deriving an intra prediction mode of the current chroma block based on the candidate list [(para 171 and step 366 & 368 of Fig.13)] : and generating a prediction sample of the current chroma block based on the derived intra prediction mode [(para 171-172; step 374 of Fig.13)] .
Zhang does not explicitly show wherein the candidate list includes a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) mode based on a cross-component linear model (CCLM) mode not being applied to the current chroma block
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Wang teaches wherein the candidate list includes a decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD) mode based on a cross-component linear model (CCLM) mode not being applied to the current chroma block [(para 212; “may determine to apply DIMD based on the absence of signaling including information associated with an application of an intra coding tool to the current block.”, “Some examples of an intra coding tool include intra sub-partitions (ISP), multiple reference line (MRL), cross-component linear model (CCLM) prediction mode”; also see para 221, 249, 258, 278 )]
Zhang additionally teaches, with regards to claim 8. An image encoding method comprising: configuring a candidate list of a current chroma block based on an intra prediction mode of a luma block corresponding to the current chroma block: determining an intra prediction mode of the current chroma block based on the candidate list: and generating a prediction sample of the current chroma block based on the determined intra prediction mode. [(see the analysis of corresponding limitations of claim 1 above and note that Zhang also described corresponding encoding method {see Fig.12 and para 164})]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because to further reduce the bitrate [(Wang para 57-58 )].
Zhang additionally teaches, with regards to claim 10. A method of transmitting data of image information[(para 36)] , comprising: configuring a candidate list of a current chroma block based on an intra prediction mode of a luma block corresponding to the current chroma block: determining an intra prediction mode of the current chroma block based on the candidate list: generating a prediction sample of the current chroma block based on the determined intra prediction mode: [(see the analysis of corresponding limitations of claim 1 above })]
generating a bitstream by encoding the current chroma block based on the prediction sample:[(para 34)] and transmitting data including the bitstream. [(para 36)]
Zhang in view of Wang teaches, with regards to claim 2. The image decoding method according to claim 1, further comprising determining whether a cross-component linear model (CCLM) mode is applied to the current chroma block [(Zhang para 68, Wang para 212)]
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wang in view of Ikai.
Regarding Claim 3. Zhang in view of Wang does not explicitly show determining whether a direct mode (DM) is applied to the current chroma block when it is determined that the CCLM mode is not applied to the current chroma block.
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Ikai teaches determining whether a direct mode (DM) is applied to the current chroma block when it is determined that the CCLM mode is not applied to the current chroma block [(when Ikai para 112, cclm_flag is “0” and mpm_index_chroma for MPM list is decoded. The MPM list uses DM intra mode and other modes; the index indicates each modes including DM mode is numbered and identified )] .
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would provide predictable result with no change of their respective functionalities.
Zhang additionally teaches, with regards to claim 4. The image decoding method according to claim 3, wherein the configuring of the candidate list is performed when it is determined that the DM mode is not applied to the current chroma block. [(Zhang para 68)]
Ikai additionally teaches, with regards to claim 5.The image decoding method according to claim 1, wherein the candidate list includes an intra prediction mode of at least one of a first luma block including a sample at an upper left position within a luma block corresponding to the current chroma block, a second luma block including a sample at an upper right position therewithin, a third luma block including a sample at a lower left position therewithin, or a fourth luma block including a sample at a lower right position therewithin. [(Ikai para 112 and Fig.4)]
Zhang additionally teaches, with regards to claim 6. The image decoding method according to claim 5, wherein the candidate list includes an intra prediction mode of at least one of a first chroma block adjacent to an upper left side of the current chroma block, a second chroma block adjacent to an upper side thereof, a third chroma block adjacent to an upper right side thereof, a fourth chroma block adjacent to a left side thereof, or a fifth chroma block adjacent to a lower left side thereof. [(Zhang para 109)]
Conclusion
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 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights