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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/27/25 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/27/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ye et al. (US 2020/0045322).
Regarding claim 1, Ye discloses a method for video processing (see fig. 15; e.g. see ¶ [0116]), comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a prediction for the current video block (see 1560 in fig. 15) based on a plurality of sub-partitions of the current video block (see 1540 in fig. 15) and at least one intra prediction scheme (see 1520 in fig. 15), wherein the current video block is a chroma block (see 1560 in fig. 15), and the plurality of sub-partitions are obtained by partitioning the current video block (see 1022 in fig. 10; see 910 in fig. 9); and performing the conversion based on the prediction for the current video block (see 1560 in fig. 15).
Regarding claim 2, Ye further discloses wherein the plurality of sub-partitions are obtained by partitioning the current video block based on at least one partitioning mode (see 910 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Ye further discloses wherein the at least one partitioning mode comprise a plurality of partitioning modes (see 910 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Ye further discloses wherein information regarding at least one of the following is indicated in the bitstream: or one of the plurality of partitioning modes that is used (see 920 in fig. 9), or
Regarding claim 5, Ye further discloses wherein the prediction for the current video block is determined based on predictions for the plurality of sub-partitions and geometric positions of the plurality of sub-partitions in the current video block (see 1540 in fig. 15), and the predictions for the plurality of sub-partitions are determined based on the at least one intra prediction scheme (see 1520 in fig. 15), or
Regarding claim 6, Ye further discloses wherein the predictions for the plurality of sub-partitions comprise a prediction for a sub-partition of a current color component (see 1540 in fig. 15), or
Regarding claim 7, Ye further discloses wherein the number of sub-partitions in the plurality of sub-partitions is 2 (see 920 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Ye further discloses wherein the at least one partitioning mode comprise one or more sets of partitioning modes (see 910 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 9, Ye further discloses wherein the one or more sets of partitioning modes are signaled in the bitstream (see 920 in fig. 9), or
Regarding claim 10, Ye further discloses wherein the at least one partitioning mode is dependent on at least one of a color format or a color component of the current video block (e.g. see ¶ [0054]).
Regarding claim 11, Ye further discloses wherein the at least one partitioning mode is the same for a plurality of chroma components, or the at least one partitioning mode is different for a plurality of chroma components (see 910 in fig. 9).
Regarding claim 12, Ye further discloses wherein if the color format for the current video block is 4:2:0 color format or 4:2:2 color format (e.g. see ¶ [0054]), the at least one partitioning mode comprises a partitioning mode for a luma intra sub-partitions (ISP) mode (see 910 in fig. 9), or
Regarding claim 13, Ye further discloses wherein the bitstream comprises at least one syntax element indicating at least one of the following: whether to partition the current video block (see 910-920 in fig. 9), how to partition the current video block, or weights for the plurality of sub-partitions.
Regarding claim 14, Ye further discloses wherein at least one of the following is indicated in the bitstream or determined based on coding information of the current video block or coding information of a block coded before the current video block: whether to use the one or more sets of partitioning modes (see 920 in fig. 9), or
Regarding claim 15, Ye further discloses wherein the plurality of sub-partitions are coded sequentially (see 920 in fig. 9), or
Regarding claim 16, Ye further discloses wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0028]).
Regarding claim 17, Ye further discloses wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0028]).
Regarding claim 18, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 19, the claim(s) recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to perform acts (e.g. see ¶ [0116]) with analogous limitations to claim 1, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Regarding claim 20, a bit stream generated by a method, the method comprising… is a product by process claim limitation where the product is the bit stream and the process is the method steps to generate the bitstream. MPEP §2113 recites “Product-by-Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps”. Thus, the scope of the claim is the storage medium storing the bitstream (with the structure implied by the method steps). The structure includes the information and samples manipulated by the steps.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The storage medium storing the claimed bitstream merely services as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no fictional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefor the structure bitstream, which scope is implied by the method steps, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a storage medium storing data and is anticipated by Ye which recites a storage medium storing a bitstream (e.g. see ¶ [0116]).
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Jang et al. (US 2025/0274590), discloses coding with luma chroma subblock.
2. Li et al. (US 2023/0106614), discloses subblock cross component linear prediction.
3. Lee et al. (US 2022/0256189), discloses intra block copy encoding/decoding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T TORRENTE whose telephone number is (571)270-3702. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 6:45-3:15 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, Jay Patel can be reached at (571) 272-2988. 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.
/RICHARD T TORRENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights