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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 6, “a prediction block” is claimed when claim 1 already claims “a prediction block”. As best understood by the examiner based on similar claim 15, this should be “a second prediction block” to avoid confusion with the prediction block of claim 1.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 6, “using a adjacent reference line” should be “using an adjacent reference line”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner would like to note that the method steps of claim 17 do not have to be given weight because there is no functional relationship between the medium and the computer (see MPEP 2111.05(III) titled MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA). The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium serves as a support for the data (i.e. the bitstream) which is not used by the computer for any other purpose. The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium is merely serving as support for data created by the method. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has included citations below.
The Examiner recommends adding instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium which cause a processor to generate a bitstream.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 2 and 4-13 are 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 abovementioned claims refer to “the reconstructed region” when claim 1 includes 2 different reconstructed regions (i.e. luma and chroma), it is unclear which reconstructed region is being referred to.
Moreover, regarding claims 2 and 4-13, it is unclear if a new “reconstructed region” is being claimed as the claim language seems to conflict with claim 1 because claim 2 appears to derive 1 reconstructed region (“the reconstructed region” of claim 1) through generating the prediction block of claim 1, while claim 1 which generates a prediction block using 2 different reconstructed regions (i.e. reconstructed region of the luma component and reconstructed region of the chroma component).
Further, regarding claim 11, “a predetermined ratio” of a single value (i.e. a width or a height) is claimed twice. By definition, a ratio involves a comparison between two or more quantities, it is unclear how a ratio of a single quantity (i.e. either a width or a height alone) is calculated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
2. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is directed towards a “computer-readable recording medium” which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. The office has determined that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a computer readable medium includes both transitory and non-transitory mediums (See MPEP 2106(II) or 2106.03(II)). Since the specification does not explicitly define the claimed computer-readable recording medium as a non-transitory medium, claim 17 includes at least one embodiment where the claimed bitstream is stored on a transitory medium. As a result, claim 17 is not directed towards any of the statutory categories.
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)(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(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (U.S. 2022/0030220), hereinafter Deng.
Regarding claim 17, Deng discloses a computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream (Deng claim 19) generated by a video encoding method, the video encoding method comprises: deriving a corresponding luma block that corresponds to a current chroma block based on a color format that represents a corresponding relation between pixels of the corresponding luma block and pixels of the current chroma block; deriving a reconstructed region of a luma component for the corresponding luma block and deriving a reconstructed region of a chroma component for the current chroma block based on a block partitioning structure of the luma component and the chroma component and prediction information of the corresponding luma block; modeling a relationship between samples in the reconstructed region of the luma component and samples in the reconstructed region of the chroma component; and generating a prediction block of the current chroma block from samples in the corresponding luma block by using a modeled relationship (see claim interpretation section above and claim 1 citations below).
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (U.S. 2022/0030220), hereinafter Deng in view of Deng et al. (U.S. 2022/0248025), hereinafter Deng2. Deng and Deng2 were cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 1/24/25.
Regarding claim 1, Deng discloses a method performed by a video decoding device for intra predicting a current chroma block, the method comprising:
deriving a corresponding luma block that corresponds to the current chroma block based on a color format (Deng [0025], [0229]-[0230] and figs. 5-6) that represents a corresponding relation between pixels of the corresponding luma block and pixels of the current chroma block (Deng [0047]);
deriving a reconstructed region of a luma component for the corresponding luma block and deriving a reconstructed region of a chroma component for the current chroma block based on a block partitioning structure of the luma component and the chroma component and prediction information of the corresponding luma block (Deng fig. 3, [0053], claims 1 and 4);
modeling a relationship between samples in the reconstructed region of the luma component and samples in the region of the chroma component (Deng [0053] and fig. 3); and
generating a prediction block of the current chroma block from samples in the corresponding luma block by using a modeled relationship (Deng [0053] and claim 1).
Deng does not explicitly disclose that modeling a relationship between samples in the reconstructed region of the luma component and samples in the reconstructed region of the chroma component.
However, Deng2 teaches deriving a reconstructed region of a luma component for the corresponding luma block and deriving a reconstructed region of a chroma component for the current chroma block based on a block partitioning structure of the luma component and the chroma component and prediction information of the corresponding luma block (Deng2 ‘025 [0212], and [0428]);
modeling a relationship between samples in the reconstructed region of the luma component and samples in the reconstructed region of the chroma component (Deng2 [0123], [0127]-[0128], [0424], [0428] and figs. 10-11); and
generating a prediction block of the current chroma block from samples in the corresponding luma block by using a modeled relationship (Deng2 [0123]-[0124]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Deng with the missing limitations as taught by Deng2 to improve coding efficiency as a result of using already reconstructed samples (Deng2 [0212]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
decoding a prediction mode of the current chroma block from a bitstream (Deng [0044], [0665], [0066] and claim 1); and
determining whether the prediction mode utilizes the modeled relationship (Deng [0014], [0066] and claim 1),
wherein, when the prediction mode utilizes the modeled relationship, proceeding with deriving the reconstructed region through generating the prediction block (Deng [0053], [0665] and claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising, when the prediction mode does not utilize the modeled relationship (Deng [0063] and [0066]):
deriving a reconstructed reference line or reference region of the current chroma block based on the block partitioning structure and the prediction information of the corresponding luma block (Deng [0063]); and
generating a prediction block of the current chroma block by using the reconstructed reference line or reference region according to the prediction mode (Deng [0052], [0063] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein deriving the reconstructed region comprises:
determining, based on an aspect ratio of the corresponding luma block (Deng [0338], [0441]-[0442] and Deng2 [0115]), the reconstructed region of the luma component by a left reconstructed region of the corresponding luma block, a top reconstructed region of the corresponding luma block, or a top-and-left reconstructed region of the corresponding luma block (Deng [0066] and fig. 3).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches the method of claim 4, wherein deriving the reconstructed region comprises:
determining the reconstructed region of the chroma component as a region corresponding to the reconstructed region of the luma component according to the color format (Deng [0053], [0230], [0441]-[0442] and fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein deriving the reconstructed region comprises:
when the block partitioning structure of a single tree structure (Deng2 [0226]), using a reconstructed non-adjacent region based on a distance between the corresponding luma block and a reference line used for prediction of the corresponding luma block (Deng2 [0217]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein deriving the reconstructed region comprises:
determining a portion of reconstructed regions of the luma component and the chroma component by a region non-adjacent with the corresponding luma region and the current chroma block (Deng2 [0217]) when the block partitioning structure is a single tree structure (Deng2 [0226]), a reference line used for prediction of the corresponding luma block is non-adjacent with the corresponding luma block (Deng2 [0217]), the corresponding luma block is predicted according to a directional prediction (Deng2 [0217] and [0116]), and a prediction mode of the directional prediction is a preset direction (Deng2 [0217] and [0116]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein deriving the reconstructed region comprises:
determining the reconstructed region of the luma component as a non-adjacent region for a region with sub-luma blocks predicted by using a non-adjacent reference line (Deng2 [0217]), and
determining the reconstructed region of the luma component as an adjacent region for a region with sub-luma blocks predicted by using a adjacent reference line when the block partitioning structure is a dual tree structure (Deng claim 1) and when blocks adjacent to a top-and-left boundary of the corresponding luma block hold both the sub-luma blocks predicted by using the non-adjacent reference line (Deng2 [0217]) and the sub-luma blocks predicted by using the adjacent reference line (Deng [0053] and fig. 3).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches a method performed by a video encoding device for intra predicting a current chroma block, the method comprising:
deriving a corresponding luma block that corresponds to the current chroma block based on a color format that represents a corresponding relation between pixels of the corresponding luma block and pixels of the current chroma block;
deriving a reconstructed region of a luma component for the corresponding luma block and deriving a reconstructed region of a chroma component for the current chroma block based on a block partitioning structure of the luma component and the chroma component and prediction information of the corresponding luma block;
modeling a relationship between samples in the reconstructed region of the luma component and samples in the reconstructed region of the chroma component; and
generating a first prediction block of the current chroma block from samples in the corresponding luma block by using a modeled relationship (claim 14 recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Furthermore, claim 14 discloses an inverse of decoding and Deng discloses both encoding and decoding methods (Deng [0665])).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches the method of claim 14, further comprising:
deriving a reconstructed reference line or reference region of the current chroma block based on the block partitioning structure and the prediction information of the corresponding luma block (Deng fig. 3); and
generating a second prediction block (Deng [0553] and Deng2 [0092]) of the current chroma block by using the reconstructed reference line or the reference region (Deng [0053] and fig. 3).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches the method of claim 15, further comprising:
determining, based on the first prediction block and the second prediction block, a prediction mode indicative of whether to use the modeled relationship (Deng [0053]); and
encoding the prediction mode (Deng [0665] and claim 1 and Deng2 [0158]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 16.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng in view of Deng2 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (CA 3118429 A1). A copy of Lee has been attached.
Regarding claim 6, Deng in view of Deng2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein deriving the reconstructed region comprises:
when the block partitioning structure is a single tree structure (Deng2 [0226]), and when the corresponding luma block is predicted based on a non-adjacent reference line or non-adjacent reference region distant from the corresponding luma block (Deng2 [0217]), constructing the reconstructed region of the luma component from the non-adjacent reference line or non-adjacent reference region (Deng2 [0217]).
The same motivation for claim 1 applies to claim 6.
Deng does not explicitly disclose predicting using a natural number ‘a’ distance.
However, Lee teaches predicting using a natural number ‘a’ distance (Lee [176]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Deng in view of Deng2 with the missing limitations as taught by Lee to improve coding efficiency as a result of using more easily identifiable numbers (Lee [176] and [02]).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of improving coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Deng in view of Deng2 and Lee teaches the method of claim 6, wherein deriving the reconstructed region comprises:
constructing the reconstructed region of the chroma component as a region adjacent to the current chroma block (Deng fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In addition, the 112 rejection above would need to be resolved for these claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW KWAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7073. 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.
/MATTHEW K KWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482