DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Action on the Merits for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/916,562, filed 15 October 2024, which is a divisional of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/779,478, now U.S. Patent No. 12,155,826, filed 24 May 2022, which is a National Stage Entry under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of International Application No. PCT/KR2020/016581, filed 23 November 2020, which claims foreign priority to Korean Application No. KR10-2019-01532978, filed 26 November 2019.
Claims 1–11 are pending.
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 U.S.C. § 112
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.
Claims 2, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, both claims recite that when a certain condition is met, “not only a tree type regarding the current chroma block is a dual tree but also the tree type regarding the current chroma block is a single tree”. However, “the most certain of all beliefs is that opposite statements are not both true at the same time . . . it is obvious that contraries cannot apply at the same time to the same thing”. Aristotle, Metaphysics 1011b3 (H. Tredennick trans.). In VVC, “dual tree” signifies a block splitting, and “single tree” signifies the absence of such division but one undivided block. Even the claimed conditions of omitting decoding the bdpcm flag as in claim 2 or applying a palette mode to the current chroma block as in claim 6 are not able to negate the most basic law of logic – that the current chroma block cannot both be split and unsplit. The examiner guesses that Applicant may be trying to claim a local dual tree, which allows for a single tree luma block and the corresponding chroma block to be dual tree, or that the dual tree and single tree types are two possible options for the current chroma block. However, in light of the claims themselves, such conjecture would be speculative. Contrast with the plain language in claim 5, which lists two options unambiguously. Further search and action on the merits is precluded. M.P.E.P. § 702.01. Claim 3, dependent on claim 2, is interpreted as dependent on claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim limitation “a transmitting unit configured to obtain the compressed video data” purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, there is no mention of a “transmitting unit” in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. § 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d) and M.P.E.P. §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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)(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.
Claims 1, 3–5, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by VVC Draft 7 (“VVC-7”)1.
VVC-7, directed to a video codec, teaches with respect to claim 1 a method of decoding a video, the method comprising:
determining a prediction mode of a current chroma block (§ 7.3.9.5, pred_mode_flag in coding unit syntax);
obtaining prediction samples of the current chroma block according to the prediction mode of the current chroma block (§ 8.4.5.2.1, intra mode prediction sample; § 8.5.6.1, inter mode prediction samples)
obtaining residual samples of the current chroma block (§ 8.4.1, residual sample array); and
reconstructing the current chroma block based on the prediction samples and the residual samples (§ 8.7.5, “Picture reconstruction process”),
wherein the method further comprises:
determining whether a BDPCM (Block-based Delta Pulse Code Modulation) mode is applied to the current chroma block or not (§ 7.3.9.5, intra_bdpcm_chroma_flag), and
wherein when the prediction mode of the current chroma block is a palette mode, decoding a bdpcm flag, indicating whether the BDPCM mode is applied or not, for the current chroma block is omitted (id., palette coding and intra_bdpcm_chroma_flag are mutually exclusive depending on pred_mode_plt_flag and treeType).
Regarding claim 3, VVC-7 teaches the method of claim [1], wherein when decoding the BDPCM flag is omitted, the BDPCM mode is not applied to the current chroma block to obtain the residual samples(§ 8.4.3, if BdpcmFlag[ xCb ][ yCb ][ 1 ] = 0, the chroma intra prediction mode is derived from a scheme other than BdpcmDir[ xCb ][ yCb][ 1 ]
Regarding claim 4, VVC-7 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the prediction mode of the current chroma block comprises:
determining, based on a palette flag, whether the palette mode is applied to the current chroma block or not (§ 7.3.9.5, pred_mode_plt_flag),
wherein when the palette flag indicates that the palette mode is not applied to the current chroma block, intra prediction mode for determining an intra prediction mode of the current chroma block is further decoded (id., intra_chroma_pred_mode dependent on pred_mode_plt_flag being false).
Regarding claim 5, VVC-7 teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the intra prediction mode information comprises at least one of a CCLM (Cross-Component Linear Model) flag (§ 7.3.9.5, cclm_mode_flag dependent on pred_mode_plt_flag being false), or
mode information for the current chroma block (id., intra_chroma_pred_mode dependent on pred_mode_plt_flag being false).
Regarding claim 10, all other things equal to claim 1, VVC-7 recites encoding residual samples of the current chroma block (§ 8.5.1, reconstructing picture for in-loop filtering as part of decoding process).
Regarding claim 11, VVC-7 teaches an apparatus for transmitting compressed video data, the apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to obtain the compressed video data (§ 3.47, encoder), and
a transmitting unit configured to transmit the compressed video data (§ 7.4.2.4.1, decoder “receiving” data implies encoder transmits data),
wherein obtaining the compressed video data comprises: [the claim 10 method] (claim 10 rejection supra).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over VVC-7 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0051336 A1 (“Chao”).
Claim 7 is directed to the palette mode being applicable to the current chroma block if the block size is greater than a threshold. VVC-7 does not teach this, instead enabling palette mode if the block is no larger than 64 x 64 pixels. However, Chao, directed to palette mode prediction, teaches with respect to claim 7 the method of claim 1, wherein the palette mode is applicable to the current chroma block when a size of the current chroma block is greater than a threshold size (¶ 0042, palette coding only enabled for chroma intra blocks above a certain size).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify VVC-7 to restrict palette coding chroma blocks to those above a minimum size, as taught by Chao, in order to keep cleaner palette predictor maintenance. Chao ¶ 0042.
Regarding claim 8, VVC-7 in view of Chao teaches the method of claim 7, wherein when a tree type regarding the current chroma block is a single tree, the threshold size is determined as a fixed value of 16 (Chao ¶ 0041, 16 samples is the smallest allowed chroma block size for single coding tree).
Regarding claim 9, VVC-7 in view of Chao teaches the method of claim 8, wherein when the tree type regarding the current chroma block is a dual tree, the threshold size is adaptively determined according to a chroma format (Chao ¶ 0042–46, adjusting use of local dual tree for chroma blocks).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2022/0353540 A1
US 2016/0234494 A1
CN 107087172 A
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2020/0413069 A1
US 2022/0272329 A1
EP 4482152 A2
US 2022/0078453 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
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, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. 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.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Signature Page
U.S. Patent Application No. 18/916,562
Non-Final Rejection created 5 May 2026
1 This reference was cited as an ‘X’ reference in the International Search Report for corresponding application PCT/KR2020/016581. It was listed in the 15 October 2024 Information Disclosure Statement.
