DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the specification objection, claim objection, 112 rejection and 102/103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections/rejections above have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has amended the independent claims to include “wherein whether to decode the cross-component prediction mode flag from a bitstream is determined by considering whether the partitioning structure of the current chroma block is the same as a corresponding luma structure”. The examiner could not locate support for this limitation within the specification nor within the paragraphs [0263-0267] provided by the applicant. Applicant is required to provide support for the issue above.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 6-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The independent claims state the limitation “wherein whether to decode the cross-component prediction mode flag from a bitstream is determined by considering whether the partitioning structure of the current chroma block is the same as a corresponding luma structure”. It is unclear what is meant by “considering” whether the chroma/luma have the same partitioning structure. Is the same partitioning structure for chroma/luma used in the determination process for decoding a CCP mode flag or not? Applicant is required to resolve the 112 issue above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. It appears that independent claim 1 already determines whether to decode a CCP mode flag when the chroma/luma have the same partitioning structure. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-2 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (herein after will be referred to as Choi) (US 20220417517) in view of Deng et al. (herein after will be referred to as Deng) (US 20220030257).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses
a method of decoding an image, the method comprising: [See Choi [Fig. 3]]
determining, based on a cross-component prediction mode flag, whether a cross-component prediction mode is applied to the current chroma block or not; in response that the cross-component prediction mode being applied to the current chroma block, obtaining predicting parameters of the current chroma block; and [See Choi [0742] cclm_mode_flag. Also, see 0011, deriving an intra prediction mode as CCLM mode based on the prediction mode information.]
obtaining a first prediction block of the current chroma block based on a corresponding luma block and the prediction parameters of the current chroma block, [See Choi [0011] Generating prediction samples for the current chroma block based on the CCLM parameter and the luma samples.]
Choi does not explicitly disclose
determining a partitioning structure of a current chroma block;
wherein whether to decode the cross-component prediction mode flag from a bitstream is determined by considering whether the partitioning structure of the current chroma block is the same as a corresponding luma structure.
However, Deng does disclose
determining a partitioning structure of a current chroma block; [See Deng [0034] Chroma partitioning tree.]
wherein whether to decode the cross-component prediction mode flag from a bitstream is determined by considering whether the partitioning structure of the current chroma block is the same as a corresponding luma structure. [See Deng [0345] CCLM depends on block dimensions and/or partition information and/or partition structure type (i.e. single tree). Also, see 0364, the syntax elements related to CCLM are signaled but the CCLM modes are not used.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Choi to add the teachings of Deng, in order to tackle the problems associated with CCLM via restriction of cross-component dependency in CCLM and other coding tools that rely on information from a different color component [See Deng [0180]].
Regarding claim 2, Choi (modified by Deng) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Choi discloses
the cross-component mode flag is decoded from the bitstream. [See Choi [0742] cclm_mode_flag.]
Choi does not explicitly disclose
wherein in response to the partitioning structure of the current chroma block being the same as the corresponding luma block,
However, Deng does disclose
wherein in response to the partitioning structure of the current chroma block being the same as the corresponding luma block, [See Deng [0345] CCLM depends on block dimensions and/or partition information and/or partition structure type (i.e. dual tree or single tree). Also, see 0364, the syntax elements related to CCLM are signaled but the CCLM modes are not used.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 20220417517) in view of Deng (US 20220030257) and in further view of Zhang et al. (herein after will be referred to as Zhang) (US Patent No. 10,812,206).
Regarding claim 3, Choi (modified by Deng) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Choi does not explicitly disclose
wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a second prediction block for the current chroma block based on prediction information used to predict the corresponding luma block, and wherein a final prediction block of the current chroma block is obtained based on a weighted sum of the first prediction block and the second prediction block,
the partitioning structure of the current chroma block being the same as the corresponding luma block.
However, Zhang does disclose
wherein the method further comprises: obtaining a second prediction block for the current chroma block based on prediction information used to predict the corresponding luma block, and wherein a final prediction block of the current chroma block is obtained based on a weighted sum of the first prediction block and the second prediction block, [See Zhang [Col. 2 lines 56 to Col. 3 line 9] The combined chroma predictor may correspond to a weighted sum of the local chroma predictor and the second chroma predictor. The combined chroma predictor, P(i,j) is derived from the local chroma predictor and the second chroma predictor. Also, see Col. 6 lines 43-56, a chroma block is first predicted via LLMI mode and is fused with other modes. The chroma block is then predicted by another prediction mode, such as mode K that is different from the LLMI mode. Also, see Col. 7 line 15, any mode is used as mode K as long as it is not LLMI mode. Also, see Claim 10, LM mode.]
the partitioning structure of the current chroma block being the same as the corresponding luma block. [See Zhang [Fig. 2] Same partitioning structure between luma/chroma.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Choi (modified by Deng) to add the teachings of Zhang, in order to improve upon coding performance via obvious weighted prediction techniques.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US 20220417517) in view of Deng (US 20220030257) in view of Zhang (US Patent No. 10,812,206) and in further view of Lee et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lee) (US 20210281838).
Regarding claim 6, Choi (modified by Deng, Zhang and Lee) disclose the method of claim 3. Furthermore, Choi does not explicitly disclose
wherein the prediction information of the corresponding luma block is a most frequent intra prediction mode among intra prediction modes of a plurality of neighboring samples.
However, Lee does disclose
wherein the intra prediction mode of the corresponding luma block is derived as the most frequent intra prediction mode among the intra prediction modes of the plurality of neighboring samples. [See Lee [0275] Predetermined mode is a mode with highest frequence of occurrence.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the method by Choi (modified by Deng and Zhang) to add the teachings of Lee, in order to improve upon color component prediction [See Lee [0010]].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486