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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Following prior arts are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220070451 A1 (Abdoli)
Chen et. al. “Chroma intra prediction by reconstructed luma samples”, JUCTVC-C206, JCT-VC, 3rd Meeting: Guangzhou, CN, 7-15 October 2010 (Chen)
US 20200014920 A1 (Zhao)
Claim Objection (Allowable Subject Matter)
Claim 4 is 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.
While Abdoli teaches largest histogram and second largest histogram is used for DIMD (para 304-306), however it fails to teach the specific limitations of claim 7.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdoli in view of Chen.
Regarding Claim 1. Abdoli teaches a computing system, comprising: one or more processors, and a computer-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors [(para 62)], perform associated operations comprising: deriving a chroma intra prediction mode to be applied in reconstructing a current chroma block based on computing gradients of a plurality of collocated [(Selecting intra prediction mode based on gradients computed for pixels of the application area {para 25}
Para 26 “the at least one pixel block of the application area may be spatially preceding a pixel block of the one of the plurality of component images corresponding to the current chroma component pixel block of the first or second chroma component image. Alternatively, in one or more embodiments, the at least one pixel block of the application area may be spatially co-located with a pixel block of the one of the plurality of component images corresponding to the current chroma component pixel block of the first or second chroma component image,”
Para 229 “for a processed Cb chroma component block: determining for the Cb chroma component block a respective application area comprising a set of at least one pixel in at least one pixel block of one of the plurality of component images (which, depending on the embodiment, be the Cr chroma component image, the Cb chroma component image, or the Y luma component image)………… performing a gradient analysis on at least one pixel of the application area, and selecting, based on results of the gradient analysis, at least one intra prediction video coding mode among a plurality of intra prediction video coding modes usable for encoding and/or decoding the Cb chroma component block.”
)]
Abdoli does not explicitly show reconstructed luma samples are used as reference
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Chen teaches collocated luma samples are used as reference [(chroma prediction {hence chroma reconstructing chroma block} is done from reconstructed chroma sample {see eqn.1}. where the parameters alpha and beta are derived from the reconstructed chroma sample {equations 3 and 4} )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would improve coding efficiency by utilizing relationship between chroma and luma.
Abdoli additionally teaches, with respect to claim 2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein computing gradients comprises multiplying samples of a filter window by at least a matrix other than a Sobel filter. [(Abdoli, Sobel filter is one example but other can be used {para 387, 271)] .
Abdoli additionally teaches, with respect to claim 3. The computing system of claim 1, wherein deriving a chroma intra prediction mode comprises selecting an intra prediction mode corresponding to a largest histogram amplitude value from an intra prediction mode histogram based on computed gradients. [(Abdoli, para 304, 306, 393)] .
Abdoli additionally teaches, with respect to claim 5. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the chroma intra prediction mode is derived based on computing gradients of only the plurality of collocated reconstructed luma samples. [(Abdoli, gradient based intra prediction based on gradient analysis of application area {the abstract; para 13, 22} ; application area uses luminance or chroma component of collocated/precede or spatially co-located {para 13, 26}, on reconstructed/already been encoded therefore decoded {para 100, 97})]
Abdoli additionally teaches, with respect to claim 6. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the chroma intra prediction mode is derived based on computing gradients of the plurality of collocated luma block-adjacent reconstructed luma samples and a plurality of adjacent reconstructed chroma samples: [(gradient based intra prediction based on gradient analysis of application area {the abstract; para 13, 22} ; application area uses luminance or chroma component of collocated/precede or spatially co-located {para 26}, on reconstructed/already been encoded therefore decoded {para 100, 97}; neighbor {para 97})] wherein the plurality of adjacent reconstructed chroma samples comprises reconstructed Cb samples and reconstructed Cr samples. [(para 32, 229)]
Abdoli additionally teaches, with respect to claim 7. The computing system of claim 6, wherein the chroma intra prediction mode is derived based further on computing gradients of a plurality of collocated reconstructed luma samples. .[[(para 26, 100, 97)]
Abdoli additionally teaches, with respect to claim 8. The computing system of claim 6, wherein the plurality of adjacent reconstructed chroma samples comprises samples of a second nearest neighboring line adjacent to an upper edge of the current chroma block and adjacent to a left edge of the current chroma block. [(Fig. 6d, para 245, application area 404, current block 402)] .
Abdoli additionally teaches, with respect to claim 10. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: parsing a first flag signaled in a bitstream before deriving the chroma intra prediction mode: wherein the first flag indicates either: to apply a gradient-based derived chroma intra prediction mode to the current chroma block: or to apply one among the gradient-based derived chroma intra prediction mode or DM mode to the current chroma block. [(Decoder-side derived Intra Mode Derivation (DIMD) for chroma {para 15}; gradient based DIMD {para 27}; DIMD flag {para 378-380, 173}; please note, because of the alternative language teaching only this is enough to reject the claim; DM/LM flag para 378, 380)] :
Abdoli additionally teaches, with respect to claim 11. The computing system of claim 10, wherein the operations further comprise parsing a second flag signaled in the bitstream before deriving the chroma intra prediction mode: wherein the first flag indicates to apply a gradient-based derived chroma intra prediction mode to a current chroma block: [(DIMD flag para 378-380, 173)] : and wherein the second flag indicates not to apply DM mode to the current chroma block. [(DM/LM flag para 378, 380)].
Abdoli additionally teaches, with respect to claim 12. The computing system of claim 11, wherein the first flag is after the second flag in the bitstream. [(Abdoli teaches DIMD/gradient flag is parsed first then if IPM then parse DM/LM flag {, Fig.11a. para 380}; the DIMD flag is parsed first for each intra block and in case it infers a DIMD block, parsing of the IPM information is skipped {para 380}. Simply putting one flag before another, without requiring specifics {such as claim 3} does not differentiate it from another organization as taught in Abdoli as long as encoder and decoder knows about them)]
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdoli in view of Chen in view of Zhao.
Regarding Claim 9. Abdoli in view of Chen does not explicitly show the samples of the second nearest neighboring line comprise extended samples to an upper-right of the current chroma block and extended samples to a lower-left of the current chroma block
However, in the same/related field of endeavor, Zhao teaches the samples of the second nearest neighboring line comprise extended samples to an upper-right of the current chroma block and extended samples to a lower-left of the current chroma block [(Fig.6 )]
Therefore, in light of above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of the prior arts because such combination would improve coding efficiency.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Zhao.
Regarding Claim 1. Chen teaches a computing system, comprising: one or more processors, and a computer-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the one or more processors, the computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions executable by the one or more processors that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform associated operations comprising: deriving a chroma intra prediction mode to be applied in reconstructing a current chroma block based on computing [(chroma prediction {hence chroma reconstructing chroma block} is done from reconstructed chroma sample {see eqn.1}. where the parameters alpha and beta are derived from the reconstructed chroma sample {equations 3 and 4} )]
While Chen use difference between current block and reference block instead of gradient,
Zhao shows gradient is an alternative difference measure for deriving intra prediction mode[(para 86, 134, 154, 156, 91 )]
Therefore, considering above discussion it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to replace Chen’s difference measure with Zhao’s gradient as such alternative measures are well accepted and would work predictably with no change of its functionalities.
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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12355982. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 8 teaches the instant claim 1. Dependent claims are obvious variation of combinations of patented claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shahan Rahaman whose telephone number is (571)270-1438. The examiner can normally be reached on 7am - 3:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4195. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SHAHAN UR RAHAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights