DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 10/28/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined.
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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/602,690, filed on 10/08/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statement(s) submitted on 10/28/2024 and 11/25/2025 has/have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-7, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1, line 2 of the claim, “configure” should likely read - - configuring - - .
Regarding Claim 4, lines 1-2 of the claim recites “the predefined separate intra prediction mode” (i.e., lacking clear antecedent basis). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably interpreted as - - a predefined separate intra prediction mode - - .
Regarding Claim 5, line 2 of the claim, “Mode(MPM)” should likely include a space - - Mode (MPM) - - .
Regarding Claim 6, line 2 of the claim, “doesn’t” should likely read as either - - does not - - or - - is configured not to - - .
Regarding Claim 7, the last line recites, “the MPM candidate list” (i.e., lacking clear antecedent basis). For purposes of examination, the limitation will be reasonably interpreted - - a MPM candidate list - - .
Regarding Claim 19, line 2 of the claim, “configure” should likely read - - configuring - - .
Examiner respectfully requests from Applicant verification and requires appropriate correction regarding these matters.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,166,974 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because not only the scope of the features of the claims are the same, but also, for instance, independent Claims of the instant application are broader in scope than the corresponding Claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,166,974 B2.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 15, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 5, and 8 of US 11,202,063 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because not only the scope of the features of the claims are the same, but also, for instance, independent Claims of the instant application are broader in scope than the corresponding Claims 1, 5, and 8 of US 11,202,063 B2.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 15, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 17-18, and 38-39 of U.S. Patent No. US 8,208,545 B2 in view of Claims 1, 5, and 8 of US 11,202,063 B2, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize separate/particularized intra prediction mode information, such as DC vs. angular modes, which would allow for increased precision during intra prediction and also reducing coding costs. Furthermore, the elements are shown by the above-mentioned claims, as noted above, in which it would have been obvious to combine known techniques ready for improvement, to provide predictable results in increasing image quality and coding efficiency while also reducing coding complexity.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 15, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. US 9,154,781 B2 in view of Claims 1, 5, and 8 of US 11,202,063 B2, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize separate/particularized intra prediction mode information, such as DC vs. angular modes, which would allow for increased precision during intra prediction and also reducing coding costs.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
Claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 5, and 8 of US 11,202,063 B2 in view of Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, and 14 of US 11,503,316 B2, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize separate/particularized intra prediction mode information, such as DC and planar vs. angular modes, which would allow for increased precision during intra prediction and also reducing coding costs.
Examiner further notes that any minor differences to the wording of the claims are merely a matter of semantics and do not carry significant patentable weight.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Due to the very broad claim construction, there are a significant number of patents applicable to double patenting for the instant invention, in which a few are noted above. In this manner, the Applicant is highly encouraged to amend the claims in a way that more closely encapsulates the inventive concept of the instant application.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang, US Patent Application Publication No.: 2022/0182614 A1 (please note the Provisional Application No.: 62/815,347 filed 07 March 2019), hereby Jang.
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream. Significantly, the claimed non-transitory computer readable recording medium is merely memory with non-functional descriptive material and is NOT implementing any actual method; no instructions/steps are being executed. Instead, the claimed storage medium merely stores the data output from and/or generated by a series of acts. In other words, the claims are directed to a mere machine-readable medium storing data content.
Applicant therefore seeks to patent the storage of a bitstream in the abstract. In other words, the claim seeks to patent the content of the information (bitstream comprising video information) and not the process itself. Moreover, this stored bitstream does not impose any definitive physical organization on the data as there is no functional relationship between the bitstream and the storage medium. Overall, Claim 20 and any claims depending therefrom are directed to mere data content (bitstream generated by a series of acts) stored as a bitstream on a computer readable recording medium. Under MPEP 2111.05(III), such claims are merely machine-readable media. Furthermore, the Examiner found and continues to find that there is no disclosed or claimed functional relationship between the stored data and medium. Instead, the medium is merely a support or carrier for the data being stored. Therefore, the data stored and the way such data is generated should not be given patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 applying In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 70 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As such, this claim is subject to a prior art rejection based on any non-transitory computer readable media known before the earliest effective filing date of the present application. Therefore, Claim 20 is anticipated by Jang, in which Jang discloses the following:
“A non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream (see Jang, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs [0390] and [0425])...”
EXAMINER’S NOTE: Applicant has not used the standard non-transitory CRM (non-transitory computer-readable media) claim formats of a) a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions that, when implemented by a processor, perform an encoding/decoding method [steps of encoding/decoding method] or a b) non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause it to perform a specified method that was held to recite patent-eligible product under 35 USC 101 by In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and endorsed by the USPTO in 77 Fed. Reg. 74618 (Dec. 16, 2014), 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas at 1-3, 8-10.
However, such standard non-transitory CRM claim formats that recite execution/implementation of a method are not subject to a non-functional descriptive material claim interpretation because such a claimed media does not merely store output data but instead stores functional, method steps that have a functional relationship with the media.
Therefore, the examiner suggests either canceling the claim(s) or amending the claim(s) to a standard non-transitory CRM format or other standard statutory class.
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.
Claims 1-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., WO 2015/180166 A1, hereby Zhang, in view of Jang, US Patent Application Publication No.: 2022/0182614 A1 (please note the Provisional Application No.: 62/815,347 filed 07 March 2019), hereby Jang.
Zhang discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Zhang discloses a method of decoding an image and a method of encoding an image (paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9), comprising:
“configure a prediction mode of a current block based on a bitstream (paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9); and
generating a prediction . . . of the current block by performing a prediction based on the prediction mode of the current block (paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
However, although Zhang suggests generating a prediction block (since this is a known feature of an encoder/decoder), Jang does expressly disclose the following:
“. . . ; and generating a prediction block of the current block by performing a prediction based on the prediction mode of the current block (Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]; see also Figs. 31-33).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang and Jang (hereby Zhang-Jang) to modify a method of encoding and decoding an image of Zhang to use the claimed generation of a prediction block as in Jang. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of efficiently encoding/decoding syntax elements related to/based upon prediction mode(s) and further reducing coding complexity (see Jang, paragraph [0024]; paragraph [0322]; Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]; Figs. 31-33).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang-Jang discloses each and every feature of Claims 1 and 19, as outlined above, and further discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a bitstream, the bitstream (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9; see also Jang, Figs. 1-5, and paragraphs [0390] and [0425]) comprising:
“separate intra prediction mode (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039], disclosing the current block is coded with IBC mode; see also Figs. 3-9) information (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]);
wherein a prediction mode of a current block is configured (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9) based on the separate intra prediction mode (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039], disclosing the current block is coded with IBC mode; see also Figs. 3-9) information (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]), and a prediction block (Jang, Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]) of the current block is generated by performing a prediction based on the prediction mode of the current block (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang-Jang to modify a non-transitory computer readable recording medium of Zhang-Jang to use the claimed separate intra prediction mode information as in Jang. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of efficiently encoding/decoding syntax elements related to whether an IBC mode is applied and further reducing coding complexity (see Jang, paragraph [0024]; paragraph [0322]; Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the prediction block is generated (Jang, Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]) based on an intra prediction mode for the current block (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9), separate intra prediction mode information indicates (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]) that whether a predefined separate intra prediction mode is used, and the predefined separate intra prediction mode is used as the intra prediction mode for the current block (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9) in a case that the separate intra prediction mode information indicates that the predefined separate intra prediction mode is used (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 20 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the predefined separate intra prediction mode is one intra prediction mode (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the predefined separate intra prediction mode is a Planar mode (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein a Most Probable Mode (MPM) is used for a determination of the intra prediction mode for the current block (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9) in a case that the separate intra prediction mode information indicates that the predefined separate intra prediction mode is not used (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 1, an MPM index for indicating which one of the MPM candidate modes is used for the CIIP intra prediction may be signaled; otherwise, if the MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 20 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein a MPM (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9) candidate list of the MPM doesn’t include the separate intra prediction mode (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 20 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein a MPM index of the MPM is not signaled via the bitstream in a case that the separate intra prediction mode information indicates that (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 1, an MPM index for indicating which one of the MPM candidate modes is used for the CIIP intra prediction may be additionally signaled; otherwise, if the MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]) the predefined separate intra prediction mode is used (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9), and the MPM index is an index for the MPM candidate list (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 1, an MPM index for indicating which one of the MPM candidate modes is used for the CIIP intra prediction may be additionally signaled; otherwise, if the MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 20 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein a signaling of the separate intra prediction mode information via the bitstream is selectively performed (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 1, an MPM index for indicating which one of the MPM candidate modes is used for the CIIP intra prediction may be additionally signaled; otherwise, if the MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 20 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein a determination for whether a first prediction process is used is performed (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]), and a determination for whether a separate intra prediction mode is used is performed (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9) based on the determination for whether the first prediction process is used (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 20 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the first prediction process includes a process of an Intra Block Copy (IBC) mode (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 20 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the separate intra prediction mode is a DC mode (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein a second prediction process is used (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9) in a case that it is determined that the separate intra prediction mode is not used (Jang, paragraph [0322], disclosing if an MPM flag is 1, an MPM index for indicating which one of the MPM candidate modes is used for the CIIP intra prediction may be additionally signaled; otherwise, if the MPM flag is 0, the intra prediction mode, such as planar mode, is a “missing” mode in the MPM candidate list, and the intra prediction mode is configured to planar (examiner notes that although this is in relation to CIIP intra prediction, in light of the teachings of Zhang and Jang, it is well within the level of one of ordinary skill to utilize a similar prediction mode process, including IBC, as an obvious variant); Figs. 31-33, and paragraphs [0364], [0367]-[0368], and [0371]-[0372], disclosing examples of utilizing an IBC_flag and pred_mode_ibc_flag; see also Figs. 1-3, and paragraphs [0086], [0099], and [0329]-[0330]).”
The motivation that was utilized in Claim 20 applies equally as well here.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the second prediction process is a method to determine an intra prediction mode for the current block using information referred from a reference area (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the separate intra prediction mode is determined using information referred from a reference area (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the separate intra prediction mode includes a DC mode and a Planar mode (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
Regarding Claim 17, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the separate intra prediction mode is determined using information referred from a reference area (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang-Jang, and in further view of Kim et al., US Patent Application Publication No.: 2021/0227213 A1 (please note the Foreign Priority Data, including KR 10-2019-0020241 filed 21 February 2019 and KR 10-2018-0137708 filed 09 November 2018), hereby Kim.
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the reference area is determined by . . . the current block (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
However, although Zhang-Jang does not expressly disclose the claimed reference area is determined by a width and a height of the current block, Kim does expressly disclose the following:
“wherein the reference area is determined by a width and a height of the current block (Fig. 5, and paragraph [0095]).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang-Jang and Kim to modify a method of encoding and decoding an image of Zhang-Jang to use the claimed reference area is determined by a width and a height of the current block as in Kim. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of providing a particularized reference area based on the shape of a current block (see Kim, Fig. 5, and paragraph [0095]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang-Jang, and in further view of Choi, US Patent Application Publication No.: 2022/0201279 A1 (please note the Provisional Application No.: 62/822,740 filed 22 March 2019), hereby Choi.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang-Jang discloses:
“wherein the reference area is determined by . . . the current block (Zhang, paragraphs [0020], [0025], [0027], and [0038]-[0039]; see also Figs. 3-9).”
However, although Zhang-Jang does not expressly disclose the claimed reference area is determined by a width and a height of the current block, Choi does expressly disclose the following:
“wherein the reference area is determined by a width and a height of the current block (Figs. 15-18, disclosing various examples of defining a reference area based on the size of the current block in relation to DC/planar intra prediction modes).”
Accordingly, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Zhang-Jang and Choi to modify a method of encoding and decoding an image of Zhang-Jang to use the claimed reference area is determined by a width and a height of the current block as in Choi. The motivation for doing so would have been to create the advantage of improving coding efficiency of intra prediction (see Choi, Figs. 15-18, and paragraphs [0012]-[0017]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Examiner notes that multiple references cited disclose intra/IBC prediction mode(s). For example, the following references show similar features in the claims, although not relied upon: Choi (US 2021/0105465 A1), Fig. 1C.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHLEEN M WALSH whose telephone number is (571)270-0423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/KATHLEEN M WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482