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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8, and 11, the Applicant contends that Bross fails to teach or suggest "BDPCM being not applied to the current chroma block AND the intra prediction mode of the current chroma block being an angular prediction mode having an index of 18 or less." However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bross discloses in Section 8.4.5.2.5 when all of the listed conditions are true, the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process specified in clause 8.4.5.2.14 is invoked, wherein one condition is “BdpcmFlag[ xTbCmp ][ yTbCmp ][ cldx ] is equal to 0,” indicating BDPCM is not applied. Bross further discloses in the same section when all of the listed conditions are true, the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process specified in clause 8.4.5.2.14 is invoked, wherein one condition is “One of the following conditions is true: predModeIntra is equal to INTRA_PLANAR; predModeIntra is equal to INTRA_DC; predModeIntra is less than or equal to INTRA_ANGULAR18; or predModeIntra is greater than or equal to INTRA_ANGULAR50 and less than INTRA_LT_CCLM.” Thus, Bross indicates “predModeIntra is less than or equal to INTRA_ANGULAR18” may enable the prediction mode sample filtering process may be enabled by the Intra mode index being less than or equal to 18. Therefore, Bross discloses both limitations argued by the Applicant. Furthermore, while Bross does indeed disclose both limitations, the newly amended claim language only requires one of these limitations to be met. Thus the Applicant’s assertion that Bross fails to disclose both limitations is moot, because both limitations are not required to meet the scope of the claim.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bross et al., Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7); Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 1-11 Oct. 2019; Document JVET-P2001-vE, pp 188-190.
Re claim 1, Bross discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
generating prediction samples by performing intra prediction on a current chroma block (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, intra sample prediction process);
determining whether to apply position dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC) to the prediction samples (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, multiple conditions for whether to apply the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process);
applying PDPC to the prediction samples (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, intra sample prediction process); and
reconstructing the current chroma block based on the prediction samples of the current chroma block to which PDCP was applied (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, intra sample prediction process),
wherein the determining whether to apply PDPC to the prediction samples comprises determining whether a size of the current chroma block satisfies one or more predetermined conditions (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, nTbW is greater than or equal to 4 and nTbH is greater than or equal to 4 is a condition for whether to apply the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process), and
wherein the one or more predetermined conditions comprise (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5):
that a width of the current chroma block is greater than or equal to 4 (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, nTbW is greater than or equal to 4 and nTbH is greater than or equal to 4 is a condition for whether to apply the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process),
that a height of the current chroma block is greater to or equal to 4 (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, nTbW is greater than or equal to 4 and nTbH is greater than or equal to 4 is a condition for whether to apply the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process),
that block difference pulse code modulation (BDPCM) is not applied to the current chroma block (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, BdpcmFlag[ xTbCmp ][ yTbCmp ][ cldx ] is equal to 0),
that the intra prediction mode of the current chroma block is an angular prediction mode having an index of 18 or less (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, predModeIntra being less than or equal to INTRA_ANGULAR18 is a condition for whether to apply the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process), and
that the intra prediction mode of the current chroma block is an intra planar mode or an intra direct current (DC) mode (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, predModeIntra being equal to INTRA_PLANAR is a condition for whether to apply the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process).
Re claim 2, Bross discloses
wherein, based on a reference sample line being a predetermined reference sample line, it is determined to apply PDPC to the prediction samples (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, refIdx being equal to 0 is a condition for whether to apply the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process), and
wherein, based on the reference sample line being not the predetermined reference sample line, it is determined not to apply PDPC to the prediction samples (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, refIdx being equal to 0 is a condition for whether to apply the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process).
Re claim 3, Bross discloses that the predetermined reference sample line is a first reference sample line adjacent to the current chroma block (Bross: Section 8.4.5.2.5, refIdx being equal to 0 is a condition for whether to apply the position-dependent prediction sample filtering process; Equation (305)).
Claim 4 recites the corresponding encoding method for generating the data decoded by the decoding method of claim 1. Encoding and decoding are widely recognized in the art to be inverse coding operations. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 4. Accordingly, claim 4 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 1 above.
Claim 5 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 2 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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) 6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bross et al., Versatile Video Coding (Draft 7); Joint Video Experts Team (JVET) of ITU-T SG 16 WP 3 and ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, 1-11 Oct. 2019; Document JVET-P2001-vE, pp 188-190, in view of Zhao et al. (US 20210084309 A1).
Re claim 6, Bross does not specifically disclose generating or transmitting a bitstream, the bitstream comprising the prediction samples to which PDCP was applied. However, Zhao discloses, during operation, a user of a terminal device may use a video application to view local video content, or transmit and/or receive video content to and/or from server 120 (Zhao: paragraph [0078]). The encoded video stream data has a lower data volume compared to the uncompressed video stream data, and may be transmitted to and stored on a streaming server 330 for live broadcast or on-demand broadcast (Zhao: paragraph [0080]). Since Bross and Zhao relate to intra prediction techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the processing capabilities of Zhao with the teachings of Bross in order to improve intra prediction processing throughput (Zhao: paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Claim 8 recites the corresponding decoding apparatus for implementing the method of claim 1. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable to claim 8.
Bross does not specifically disclose at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions stored therein that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the image decoding apparatus to perform the method of claim 1. However, Zhao discloses that each of the disclosed methods (or embodiments), encoder, and decoder may be implemented by processing circuitry (e.g., one or more processors or one or more integrated circuits), wherein the one or more processors execute a program that is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Zhao: paragraph [0063]). Since Bross and Zhao relate to intra prediction techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the processing capabilities of Zhao with the teachings of Bross in order to improve intra prediction processing throughput (Zhao: paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 2 above.
Claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 3 above.
Claim 11 recites the corresponding encoding apparatus for implementing the method of claim 4. Therefore, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable to claim 11.
Bross does not specifically disclose at least one processor; and at least one memory comprising instructions stored therein that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the image decoding apparatus to perform the method of claim 1. However, Zhao discloses that each of the disclosed methods (or embodiments), encoder, and decoder may be implemented by processing circuitry (e.g., one or more processors or one or more integrated circuits), wherein the one or more processors execute a program that is stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Zhao: paragraph [0063]). Since Bross and Zhao relate to intra prediction techniques, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have found it obvious to combine the processing capabilities of Zhao with the teachings of Bross in order to improve intra prediction processing throughput (Zhao: paragraphs [0004]-[0005]).
Claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 5 above.
Claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 6 above.
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 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER G FINDLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights