DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Claims
Currently, claims 1 and 3-7 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments / Amendments
Double Patenting:
Double Patent Rejection withdrawn per the Terminal Disclaimer filed by the applicant.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, see discussion below.
The applicant argued that Chen fails to teach or suggest "determining the at least one intra-prediction mode of the current block based on a frequency of occurrences of the intra-prediction modes of the neighboring blocks," as recited by claim 1.
As to the above argument, Chen discloses intra-prediction mode of the current block based on a frequency of occurrences of the intra-prediction modes of the neighboring blocks using multiple intra prediction modes to generate multiple sets of predictive data for the PU using samples from sample blocks of neighboring Pus from above, above and to the right, above and to the left, or to the left of the PU, assuming a left-to-right, top-to-bottom encoding order for PUs, CUs, and CTUs using various numbers of intra prediction modes, e.g., 33 directional intra prediction modes; ([0194], FIG. 12; [0210]).
It should be further noted that Applicant has not presented any specific arguments with regards to the rejections of the dependent claims.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejection with regards to above arguments.
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 of this title, 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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seregin et al., US 2017/0272748 A1 (Seregin) in view of Chen et al., US 2018/0098063 A1 (Chen).
Regarding Claim 1, Seregin discloses a method for decoding a video by using intra-prediction (Abstract, [0062]), the method comprising:
determining that a current block is intra-predicted based on an alternative mode ([0080], direct mode for chroma intra prediction, a position- dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC) flag (e.g., indicating if a PDPC mode is used), PDPC parameters);
determining at least one intra-prediction mode of the current block based on intra- prediction modes of neighboring blocks of the current block ([0125], FIG. 7, FIG. 8 , generating prediction blocks of the prediction units (PUs) of the coding unit (CU) where a reverse process is performed by the decoder);
generating a prediction block by predicting the current block based on the at least one intra-prediction mode of the current block ([0086], reuse a luma intra mode for a chroma block, but the luma block in the representative location is coded with an inter mode, video decoder 30 may configured to select another representative location to determine the luma intra mode to reuse for the chroma block; [0138], FIG. 7, FIG. 8 , generating prediction blocks of the prediction units (PUs) of the coding unit (CU) where a reverse process is performed by the decoder); and
reconstructing the current block based on the prediction block ([0154], reconstruction unit 158 may add samples of the transform blocks (e.g., luma, Cb and Cr transform blocks) to corresponding samples of the predictive blocks (e.g., luma, Cb and Cr predictive blocks) to reconstruct the coding blocks (e.g., luma, Cb and Cr coding blocks) of the CU).
Seregin does not explicitly disclose wherein determining the at least one intra-prediction mode comprises: determining the at least one intra-prediction mode of the current block based on a frequency of occurrences of the intra-prediction modes of the neighboring blocks.
However, Chen discloses determining the at least one intra-prediction mode of the current block based on a frequency of occurrences of the intra-prediction modes of the neighboring blocks ([0194], FIG. 12, use multiple intra prediction modes to generate multiple sets of predictive data for the PU using samples from sample blocks of neighboring Pus from above, above and to the right, above and to the left, or to the left of the PU, assuming a left-to-right, top-to-bottom encoding order for PUs, CUs, and CTUs using various numbers of intra prediction modes, e.g., 33 directional intra prediction modes; [0210]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective date of the claimed invention, to combine Seregin and Yang with Chen with the motivation to devise a method and apparatus to decode affine-code video blocks based on an index signaled in a bitstream [Chen: abstract].
Regarding Claim 3, Seregin in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1,
Seregin discloses wherein determining the at least one intra-prediction mode comprises: determining the at least one intra-prediction mode of the current block based on widths and heights of the neighboring blocks ([0012], [0012] In another example of the disclosure, a method of decoding video data comprises receiving a block of video data encoded using a position dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC) mode, the block of video data having a non-square shape defined by a width and a height, determining one or more PDPC parameters based on one or more of the width or the height of the block of video data, and decoding the block of video data using the PDPC mode and the determined PDPC parameters])
Regarding Claim 4, Seregin in view of Chen discloses the method of claim 1,
Seregin discloses wherein determining that the current block is intra-predicted based on the alternative mode comprises: decoding information indicating that the alternative mode is applied for intra- prediction of the current block ([0080], direct mode for chroma intra prediction, a position- dependent intra prediction combination (PDPC) flag (e.g., indicating if a PDPC mode is used), PDPC parameters).
Regarding Claims 5-6, encoding methos claim 5-6 of using the corresponding decoding method claimed in claims 1 & 4, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
Regarding Claim 7, encoding device claim 7 of using the corresponding decoding method claimed in claims 1 & 4, and the rejections of which are incorporated herein for the same reasons as used above.
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosures:
Chong et al., US 9,706,210 B2, discloses system and method for low-complexity video coding.
Gan et al., US 2023/0140041 A1, discloses system and method for encoding and decoding video.
Deng et al., US 2023/0111806 A1 discloses buffering prediction data in video coding.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samuel D Fereja whose telephone number is (469)295-9243. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-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, DAVID CZEKAJ can be reached at (571) 272-7327. 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.
/SAMUEL D FEREJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights