DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on January 27, 2025. Claims 1-12 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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 12-14, of copending Application No. 19/116,730 (the ‘730 application) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0007640 (“Li”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that claims 1, 6, and 12-14 of the ‘730 application in view of Li and claims 1, 4-5, and 10-12 of the instant invention cover substantially the same subject matter.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claim 1 of the ‘730 application in view of Li:
Instant Application
Co-Pending ‘730 Application
1. (Original) An image decoding method comprising:
1. (Original) An image decoding method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block;
1. Limitation 1: deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block…
1. Limitation 2: constructing reference samples of the current block; and
1. Limitation 3: generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the intra prediction mode and the reference samples,
1. Limitation 2: generating a prediction block of the current block based on the intra prediction mode;
1. Limitation 4: wherein the intra prediction mode is derived from a plurality of predefined intra prediction modes, and
1. Limitation 1: deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block from among pre-defined intra prediction modes, …
1. Limitation 5: the plurality of intra prediction modes include a normal planar mode, a horizontal planar mode, and a vertical planar mode.
1. Limitation 1: wherein the pre-defined intra prediction modes include a non-directional planar mode, a directional planar mode, … and the directional planar mode includes at least one of a horizontal planar mode or a vertical planar mode
“Normal” is not defined by claim 1, thus a “non-directional” planar mode may be considered a “normal” planar mode.
With respect to claim 1, the ‘730 application does not disclose constructing reference samples of the current block and generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the reference samples.
However, Li discloses constructing reference samples of the current block and generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the reference samples (see Fig. 2, items 208, 212, ¶¶17-19, 25, 28, describing intra prediction and that this includes constructing reference samples of the current block and generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the reference samples).
The claims of the ‘730 patent are directed to intra prediction. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood how prediction samples of a current block are generated in intra prediction, including, as evidenced by Li, constructing reference samples and using them to generate the prediction sample of the current block. Accordingly, to such a person it would have been obvious to modify the claims of the ‘730 application to include the steps of intra prediction, including the construction of reference samples and the use of such samples to generate the prediction sample for the current block.
Thereby, claim 1 in view of Li is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘730 application.
Claims 1 and 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-13, of copending Application No. 19/118,161 (the ‘161 application) in view of Li. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that claims 1 and 11-13 of the ‘161 application in view of Li and claims 1 and 10-12 of the instant invention cover substantially the same subject matter.
The table below shows claim 1, a sample of how each of these claims is rendered unpatentable by claims such as claim 1 of the ‘161 application in view of Li:
Instant Application
Co-Pending ‘161 Application
1. (Original) An image decoding method comprising:
1. (Original) An image decoding method comprising:
1. Limitation 1: deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block;
1. Limitation 1: deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block…
1. Limitation 2: constructing reference samples of the current block; and
1. Limitation 3: generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the intra prediction mode and the reference samples,
1. Limitation 2: generating a prediction block of the current block based on the intra prediction mode of the current block;
1. Limitation 4: wherein the intra prediction mode is derived from a plurality of predefined intra prediction modes, and
1. Limitation 1: deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block from among a plurality of pre-defined planar modes,
Planar modes were known to be a type of predefined intra prediction modes.
1. Limitation 5: the plurality of intra prediction modes include a normal planar mode, a horizontal planar mode, and a vertical planar mode.
1. Limitation 1: wherein the plurality of planar modes includes at least one of a a non-directional planar mode or a directional planar mode, and the directional planar mode includes at least one of a horizontal planar mode or a vertical planar mode
“Normal” is not defined by claim 1, thus a “non-directional” planar mode may be considered a “normal” planar mode.
With respect to claim 1, the ‘161 application does not disclose constructing reference samples of the current block and generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the reference samples.
However, Li discloses constructing reference samples of the current block and generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the reference samples (see Fig. 2, items 208, 212, ¶¶17-19, 25, 28, describing intra prediction and that this includes constructing reference samples of the current block and generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the reference samples).
The claims of the ‘161 patent are directed to intra prediction. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have understood how prediction samples of a current block are generated in intra prediction, including, as evidenced by Li, constructing reference samples and using them to generate the prediction sample of the current block. Accordingly, to such a person it would have been obvious to modify the claims of the ‘161 application to include the steps of intra prediction, including the construction of reference samples and the use of such samples to generate the prediction sample for the current block.
Thereby, claim 1 in view of Li is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the ‘161 application.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites “A computer-readable storage medium configured to store a bitstream generated by the image encoding method according to claim 10.” Claim 10 is directed to an image encoding method with several steps. Claim 11 appears to be directed to the storage medium itself. However, the claim then recites the generation of a bitstream by several method steps. It is not clear whether Applicant is attempting to claim the storage medium itself or a method of encoding a bitstream. A storage medium in and of itself cannot execute any method of coding, without a processor executing the functions stored in that medium, it is simply storage, its only function is to store. Accordingly, without the recitation of the execution of such instructions and a processor for doing so, it is not clear what applicant is attempting to claim – a storage medium storing a bitstream or a method of generating a bitstream. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
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.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0016789 (“Lou”).
With respect to claim 11, patentable weight is given to data stored on a computer-readable medium when there exists a functional relationship between the data and its associated substrate. MPEP 2111.05 III. For example, if a claim is drawn to a computer-readable medium containing programming, a functional relationship exists if the programming “performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated.” Id. However, if the claim recites that the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists and the information or data is not given patentable weight. Id. Claim 11 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium. This computer-readable storage medium is recited as being configured to store a bitstream. The claim then recites that the bitstream is generated by the method according to claim 10 (which recites several method steps). The claim does not detail instructions executed by a processor. It merely details a bitstream stored on a medium. The reference to the method of claim 10 provides how the bitstream is generated, however, the method of generating a bitstream does not appear to be the subject matter of the claim. Rather, the claim is directed to the storage medium itself, storing a bitstream. MPEP 2111.05 states that where computer programming performs some function with respect to the computer with which it is associated, a functional relationship is found. However, where the claim is directed to a computer-readable medium that merely serves as support for information or data, no functional relationship exists, e.g., a memory stick containing tables of batting averages does not provide a functional relationship between the data and the computer. Like this memory stick storing batting data, Applicant has recited a storage medium storing a bitstream. This bitstream, as recited, is generated with several steps, but the claim is not directed to the generation of the bitstream – it is directed to the storage of the bitstream on a computer-readable medium. The claim includes no intended computer to perform any of the generation elements/steps of claim 10 and the bitstream itself is not a form of programming. Accordingly, the computer-readable medium of claim 11 merely serves as support for the bitstream and provides no functional relationship; patentable weight, without such programming/computer, is not given to the steps to generate the bitstream. Therefore, the claim scope is just a computer-readable storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Lou which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (see ¶155).
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 1-4, 7-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of the level of skill in the art.
With respect to claim 1, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including
An image decoding method (see Abstract, Fig. 2, ¶¶18-19, describing a decoder for performing an image decoding method) comprising:
deriving an intra prediction mode of a current block (see Fig. 2, item 206, ¶¶17-18, 20-23, 25, describing that the encoder encodes and sends to the decoder and the decoder decodes a coding mode, e.g., intra prediction coding mode, of a current block);
constructing reference samples of the current block (see Fig. 2, items 208, 212, ¶¶17-19, 25, 28, describing intra prediction and that this includes constructing reference samples of the current block); and
generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the intra prediction mode and the reference samples (see citations with respect to elements above, describing generating a prediction of the current block/predictor based on the intra prediction mode and the reference samples),
wherein the intra prediction mode is derived from a plurality of predefined intra prediction modes (see ¶¶20-25, 37, 49, 55, 57-59, describing that the intra prediction modes may be derived from a plurality of predefined modes, e.g., DC, planar, angular, etc.), and
the plurality of predefined intra prediction modes include a normal planar mode, a horizontal planar mode, and a vertical planar mode (see citations and arguments with respect to element above, describing that the plurality of predefined modes may be a planar mode, and that this planar mode may include three different planar modes – planar horizontal, planar vertical, and the current planar mode used in the planar VVC which Li terms as planar average).
Li does not label its third planar method as “normal planar mode”. However, Li describes it as the mode currently used in the VVC standard. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to describe this as a “normal planar” mode because it is the planar mode previously used in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to have modified Li to describe “planar average” as “normal planar” and in view of the level of skill in the art, Li discloses each and every element of independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 2, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Li additionally discloses:
wherein the horizontal planar mode represents a mode for generating a prediction sample of a current sample in the current block using a horizontal sample and an upper-right sample of the current sample,
the horizontal sample represents a sample horizontally adjacent to the current sample among the reference samples, and
the upper-right sample represents a sample adjacent to an upper-right corner of the current block among the reference samples (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Li ¶49, describing that the planar horizontal, i.e., horizontal planar, mode represents a mode for generating a prediction sample of a current sample in the current block using a sample in the same row as the current sample, i.e., a horizontal sample horizontally adjacent to the current sample among the reference samples, and a sample on the top-right adjacent position to the current block, i.e., an upper-right sample in the upper-right corner of the current block among the reference samples).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Li additionally discloses:
wherein the vertical planar mode represents a mode for generating a prediction sample of a current sample in the current block using a vertical sample and a lower-left sample of the current sample,
the vertical sample represents a sample vertically adjacent to the current sample among the reference samples, and
the lower-left sample represents a sample adjacent to a lower-left corner of the current block among the reference samples (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Li ¶49, describing that the planar vertical, i.e., vertical planar, mode represents a mode for generating a prediction sample of a current sample in the current block using a sample in the same column as the current sample, i.e., a vertical sample vertically adjacent to the current sample among the reference samples, and a sample on the bottom-left adjacent position to the current block, i.e., a lower-left sample in the lower-left corner of the current block among the reference samples).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 3.
With respect to claim 4, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Li additionally discloses:
wherein the deriving of the intra prediction mode of the current block includes obtaining a first flag indicating whether the normal planar mode is used for the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Li ¶¶55-58, 65, describing that the intra prediction mode may be derived using flags, e.g., including a first flag indicating whether the planar mode is used for the current block – as disclosed, Li’s first flag indicates if a planar mode is used for the current block, if this flag is 0 then no planar mode, including the average/normal planar mode may be used for the current block, i.e., this flag is a flag that “indicates” whether the normal/average planar mode is used for the current block).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 4.
With respect to claim 7, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Li additionally discloses:
wherein the deriving of the intra prediction mode of the current block includes:
deriving an intra derivation mode based on decoder-side intra mode derivation (DIMD); and
selecting one of the horizontal planar mode and the vertical planar mode based on the intra derivation mode (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Li ¶¶41, 45, 66, 73, describing that deriving the intra prediction mode may include deriving of a mode using DIMD, i.e., an intra derivation mode, that planar horizontal or planar vertical may be stored as a DIMD mode, and that the intra mode (i.e., including planar horizontal or planar vertical) may be selected based on the DIMD mode/intra derivation mode of adjacent blocks).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 7.
With respect to claim 8, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of dependent claim 7. Li additionally discloses:
wherein, when the intra derivation mode is a horizontal directional mode, the intra prediction mode of the current block is derived as the horizontal planar mode, and when the intra derivation mode is a vertical directional mode, the intra prediction mode of the current block is derived as the vertical planar mode (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 7 above, including Li ¶¶41, 45, 66, 73, describing that the intra prediction mode of the current block may be derived based on the DIMD mode/intra derivation mode of adjacent blocks, may be derived as vertical planar mode or horizontal planar mode, and that the DIMD mode/intra derivation mode may be stored as a horizontal mode, i.e., horizontal directional mode, for horizontal planar mode or a vertical mode, i.e., vertical directional mode, for vertical planar mode).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 8.
With respect to claim 9, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Li additionally discloses:
wherein the deriving of the intra prediction mode of the current block includes sorting an order of the plurality of predefined intra prediction modes based on a cost calculated by a template matching method (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above and Li ¶¶41, 44, describing that deriving the intra prediction mode of the current block may include calculating the modes of the MPM list, i.e., predefined intra prediction modes, and, for the template-based intra derivation mode, determining which has minimum cost or which two have the smallest cost based on the TIMD method, i.e., sorting an order of these modes based on a cost calculated by a template matching method; see also Li ¶63, describing that a template-based method may be used to calculate which planar mode has the smallest SATD, i.e., cost, value to select the mode for the current block – i.e., the plurality of modes is sorted based on cost calculated by a template matching method).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 9.
With respect to claim 10, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Li additionally discloses:
An image encoding method (see Abstract, Fig. 1, ¶¶12-17, describing an encoder performing an image encoding method) comprising:
determining an intra prediction mode of a current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 1 above);
constructing reference samples of the current block (see ¶¶14-17, describing constructing reference samples from already coded reference pictures to predict the current block); and
generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the intra prediction mode and the reference samples (see citations with respect to element above, describing predicting the current block by forming a prediction sample of the current block based on the reference sample and intra prediction mode),
wherein the intra prediction mode is determined from a plurality of predefined intra prediction modes (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), and
the plurality of predefined intra prediction modes include a normal planar mode, a horizontal planar mode, and a vertical planar mode (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 10.
With respect to claim 12, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As described above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses all the elements of independent claim 1. Li additionally discloses:
A method of transmitting data about image information (see Figs. 1-2, ¶¶17-18, describing transmitting image data/information in a bitstream, i.e., a method of transmitting data about image information), comprising:
determining an intra prediction mode of a current block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 10 above);
constructing reference samples of the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 10 above);
generating a prediction sample of the current block based on the intra prediction mode and the reference samples (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above);
generating a bitstream by encoding the current block based on the prediction sample (see ¶¶17-18, describing generating an output video bitstream by encoding the current block using the prediction sample); and
transmitting data including the bitstream (see citations with respect to element above, describing that this bitstream is output from the encoder and transmitted to the decoder),
wherein the intra prediction mode is derived from a plurality of predefined intra prediction modes (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above), and
the plurality of predefined intra prediction modes include a normal planar mode, a horizontal planar mode, and a vertical planar mode (see citations and arguments with respect to corresponding element of claim 1 above).
The reasons for combining the cited prior art with respect to claim 1 also apply to claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of the level of skill in the art and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0016505 (“Sjoberg”).
With respect to claim 5, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of dependent claim 4. Li also discloses:
wherein the deriving of the intra prediction mode of the current block further includes obtaining a second [indicator] indicating an intra prediction mode used for the current block among the horizontal planar mode or the vertical planar mode when … the normal planar mode is not used for the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claim 4 above, describing that deriving of the intra prediction mode of the current block includes obtaining a second indicator indicating an intra prediction mode among horizontal or vertical planar mode when the normal planar mode is not used for the current block).
Li describes the use of a codeword to signal which of 3 modes is used – indicating “0”, “10”, or “11”. Thus, Li does not explicitly disclose the use of 2 binary flags to indicate which of the 3 modes is used - a first flag indicating that one of the modes is used and, if not, a second flag indicating which of the remaining 2 modes is used, i.e., obtaining a second flag indicating an intra prediction mode used for the current block among the horizontal planar mode or the vertical planar mode when the first flag indicates that the normal planar mode is not used for the current block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sjoberg discloses that it was known to use 2 flags to indicate which of 3 modes is used, where the second flag is conditioned on the first flag, i.e., obtaining a second flag indicating a [] mode used for the current block among the [remaining two modes] when the first flag indicates that the [first] mode is not used for the current block (see Fig. 10, items 31, 37, ¶¶117-121, 142-146, showing and describing the use of 2 flags in series to identify one of 3 modes – where one mode (e.g., mode 2), is checked (e.g., S30 results in a second value) using a first flag, and conditioned on this flag indicating that this mode is not used (e.g., S30 results in a first value), a second flag (e.g., S37) is used to indicate which of the remaining two modes are used (e.g., modes 1 or 3 based on the second flag being a first or second value)).
As detailed above, Li discloses the use of a 2-bit binary codeword to determine which of the 3 planar modes is used, e.g., average/normal planar, horizontal planar, or vertical planar. Sjoberg discloses that it was also known to use a series of 2 flags, with one flag conditioned on the other to indicate which of 3 modes was used. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with the different ways to signal in a bitstream which of 3 modes is used, including as evidence by Sjoberg, a series of 2 flags, with one flag conditioned on the other to indicate which of 3 modes is used. Accordingly, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing using such a 2-flag method for signaling the 3 planar modes of Li, as taught by Sjoberg, would have represented nothing more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. In addition, when using 2 flags, the choice of the first flag to indicate average/normal planar would have been one of 3 predictable choices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for using two flags, wherein the second flag (e.g., indicating horizontal planar or vertical planar) is conditioned on the first (e.g., indicating whether average/normal planar is used), instead of a 2-bit codeword to determine which of the average/normal planar, horizontal planar, or vertical planar mode is used for the current block in the coding system of Li as taught by Sjoberg.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of the level of skill in the art and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0400263 (“Heo”).
With respect to claim 6, Li discloses the invention substantially as claimed. As detailed above, Li in view of the level of skill in the art discloses each and every element of independent claim 1. Li also discloses:
wherein … the first flag is determined based on whether intra sub-partitions (ISP) are applied to the current block (see citations and arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4 above, describing that the first flag may indicate when the planar modes may be applied and Li ¶¶51, 74, describing that the planar modes may only be applied when ISP is enabled or disabled, i.e., whether to obtain the flag may be determined based on whether ISP is applied to the current block).
Li does not explicitly disclose that the first flag is only checked/parsed/obtained based on whether ISP is applied, i.e., wherein whether to obtain the first flag is determined based on whether intra sub-partitions (ISP) are applied to the current block.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Heo discloses that it was known to only check the planar mode flag based on whether ISP is applied to the current block:
wherein whether to obtain the first flag is determined based on whether intra sub-partitions (ISP) are applied to the current block (see ¶¶261, 272, describing that only when ISP prediction is used for the current block, it is checked whether to apply the planar mode using the mode flag).
As detailed above, Li discloses that one of the prerequisites for using the planar modes may be the use/non-use of ISP for the current block. Li does not, however, describe how this impacts the checking of flags. At the time of filing, one of ordinary skill would have been familiar with conditions for mode usage and have understood that, as evidenced by Heo, that it may be beneficial (e.g., to avoid unnecessary bit processing), to only check planar-mode based flags where planar mode is allowed to be used, e.g., based on ISP application for the current block. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to include such a condition for checking the planar flags, as taught by Heo, in the coding system of Li in order to obtain this advantage. Moreover, to such a person, doing so would have represented nothing more than the combination of prior art elements according to predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a mechanism for determining whether to obtain/check/parse the planar flags, e.g., first flag, based on whether planar mode is allowed to be used based on ISP application for the current block in the coding system of Li as taught by Heo.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY JANE KILE UHL whose telephone number is (571)270-0337. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. 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.
LINDSAY J UHL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/LINDSAY J UHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights