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 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, 7-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, US 2020/0177878 A1, in view of Zhang, US 2018/0205946 A1
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses: a video decoding method, comprising:
determining whether a predicted chroma sample is generated by the first chroma prediction mode or generated by the first chroma prediction mode and a cross-component prediction mode (Choi discloses a combined intra prediction mode that is signaled by a flag, and which combines chroma inter prediction with a cross-component linear model prediction, as disclosed in [0167] and [0243].); and
reconstructing a picture based on the predicted chroma sample.
Choi does not disclose:
decoding a first flag from a bitstream
determining a first chroma prediction mode based on the first flag;
However, Zhang discloses in an analogous art indicating a chroma prediction mode using a flag, e.g. a one bit flag, to indicate whether a decoder-side derived mode for chroma prediction is “either CCLM or derived direction mode or direct modes from luma blocks.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the flag indicating a chroma prediction mode as indicated in Zhang, in order to relay to a decoder the chroma prediction mode with minimal coding overhead.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Choi in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends. This combination, specifically Zhang, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the first chroma prediction mode comprises one or more of: a Direct Mode (DM) mode (See Zhang [0068], “video decoder 300 may code a one bit flag to indicate whether the DDM is either CCLM or derived direction mode or direct modes from luma blocks”), a default mode, or a decoder-side derived chroma mode; and wherein the cross-component prediction mode comprises one or more of: a Cross Component Linear Model LT (CCLM_LT) mode (See Choi [0145]), a CCLM_L mode, a CCLM_T mode, a MultiModel Linear Model LT (MMLM_LT) mode, an MMLM_L mode, an MMLM_ T mode, a Convolutional Cross-Component Model (CCCM) mode, or a Gradient Linear Model (GLM) mode.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Choi in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 7. This combination, specifically Zhang, further discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the generating of the predicted chroma sample by the first chroma prediction mode and the cross-component prediction mode comprises:
generating a first predicted chroma sample by the first chroma prediction mode (See eq. 6, showing the respective samples predCCLM(i, j) and predAngular(i, j), and their weights w and 1-w.);
generating a second predicted chroma sample by the cross-component chroma prediction mode (See eq. 6, showing the respective samples predCCLM(i, j) and predAngular(i, j).); and
generating a third predicted chroma sample based on a weighted sum of the first predicted chroma sample and the second predicted chroma sample (See [0228], which disclose differentially weighting to the spatial and inter predicted components of contributing to a chroma prediction.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Choi in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 7, upon which claim 8 depends. This combination, specifically Zhang, further discloses: the method of claim 7, further comprising:
determining a weight for each of the first and second predicted chroma samples, based on
coding information of a neighboring chroma block of the first and second predicted chroma samples (See eq. 6, showing the respective samples predCCLM(i, j) and predAngular(i, j), and their weights w and 1-w, in [0212].).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Choi in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 7, upon which claim 8 depends. This combination does not disclose explicitly: the method of claim 8, wherein the weights for the first and second predicted chroma samples are 3:1 or 1:3.
However, Zhang discloses the claimed of first and second predicted chroma samples, as disclosed in [0212], having weights w and 1-w. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler. In this instance, having a particular weighting ratio of where w = 1/3 or 2/3 could have been determined as a routine optimization, given the disclosure of Zhang.
Encoding method claims 10, 11, and 16-18 are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for claims 1, 2, and 7-9, respectively.
Bitstream storage method claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as given above for claims 1 and 2, respectively.
Bitstream storage method claims 19 and 20 are directed to non-functional descriptive matter. A computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream does not perform any functions, and any prior art disclosing a computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream reads on such a claim
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 12-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest:
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination of Choi in view of Zhang does not disclose: the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the predicted chroma sample is generated by the first chroma prediction mode or generated by the first chroma prediction mode and the cross-component prediction mode is based on a second flag, and the method further comprises:
in responses to the first chroma prediction mode being a Direct Mode (DM), decoding the second flag from the bitstream.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination of Choi in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 4 depends. This combination does not disclose: the method of claim 1, wherein the determining of whether the predicted chroma sample is generated by the first chroma prediction mode or generated by the first chroma prediction mode and the cross-component prediction mode is based on a second flag, and the method further comprises:
in response to the first chroma prediction mode being a decoder-side derived chroma mode, decoding the second flag from the bitstream.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the combination of Choi in view of Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which claim 5 depends. This combination does not disclose: the method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting, based on the first flag, the first chroma prediction mode from a list of chroma prediction modes;
in response to the selecting of a predetermined chroma prediction mode from the list, decoding a second flag from the bitstream; and
determining, based on the second flag, whether the predicted chroma sample is generated by the first chroma prediction mode or generated by the first chroma prediction mode and the cross-component prediction mode.
Claims 3-5 and 12-14 are directed to determining whether a combined intra prediction mode is used based on whether a first chroma prediction mode is a direct mode (claim 3), decoder-side derived chroma mode (claim 4). The closest prior art, Choi, discloses in [0019] extracting a flag combined intra prediction flag indicating whether the combined intra prediction mode is applied to the current chroma block, but does not disclose making this checking contingent on the type of the chroma prediction mode.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, the prior art does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: when the predicted chroma sample is associated with an I slice, the first chroma prediction mode is selected from a non-linear mode or a linear mode; or
when the predicted chroma sample is associated with a B slice or a P slice, the first chroma prediction mode is selected from one a decoder-side intra mode derivation chroma mode or a linear mode.
Claim 6 is directed to selecting a chroma prediction mode based on the slice type associated with the predicted chroma sample, and choosing a chroma prediction mode accordingly- non-linear or liner modes for I slices, and decoder-side intra mode derivation chroma mode or a linear mode for B and P slices. Although, Zhang, US 2020/0159960 A1 more generally discloses in [0289] making a number of motion candidates in a list for motion prediction contingent on a slice type, there is no disclosure or suggestion in the prior art to limit the prediction mode to the specific modes claimed in claims 6 and based on the slice type.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights