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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. published on US 20220210423 A1 hereinafter “Chang” in view of Zhang Jiao Jiao published on CN 115334309 A _MT hereinafter “Zhang”.
Regarding claim 1. Chang discloses a list construction method, comprising:
performing mode offset on at least part of angular prediction modes in the M first intra-prediction modes based on an order of the M first intra-prediction modes to obtain K second intra-prediction modes (0069-0082; Figures 2-3; wherein the primary MPM (PMPM) corresponds to the M first intra-prediction mode and the secondary MPM (SMPM) corresponds to the K second intra-prediction mode);
wherein K is a positive integer greater than 1 (0069-0082; Figures 2-3); and
establishing a most likely mode (MPM) list based on the M first intra-prediction modes and the K second intra-prediction modes; wherein the MPM list comprises the M first intra-prediction modes and the K second intra-prediction modes (0069-0082; Figures 2-3; wherein an MPM list an MPM list is a primary MPM (PMPM) list having six entries, while another MPM list is a secondary MPM (SMPM) list having sixteen entries. The entries in the PMPM list are derived using the intra modes of the left (L), above (A), below-left (BL), above-right (AR), and above-left (AL) neighboring blocks of a CU 402. The SMPM list is generated from the modes that are nearby (e.g., close in angle or index value) to the directional modes that are included in the PMPM list. For example, if a first entry of the PMPM list is intra mode 12 and the maximum offset is 4, then intra modes 11, 10, 9, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16 are each added to the SMPM list (corresponding to K second intra prediction modes). ).
Chang failed to discloses determining M first intra-prediction modes based on a prediction cost corresponding to each of N first intra-prediction modes; wherein the M first intra-prediction modes are at least part of the N first intra-prediction modes, wherein N is a positive integer greater than 1 and M is a positive integer less than or equal to N.
Zhang, however, in the same field of endeavor, shows determining M first intra-prediction modes based on a prediction cost (‘calculating a SATD cost’) corresponding to each of N first intra-prediction modes; wherein the M first intra-prediction modes are at least part of the N first intra-prediction modes, wherein N is a positive integer greater than 1 and M is a positive integer less than or equal to N (0024-0054; wherein for a current image block, respectively calculating a SATD cost for original intra prediction modes among an original intra prediction mode set; selecting a plurality of adjacent original intra prediction modes of original intra prediction modes in a preset direction, and generating a candidate intra prediction mode set; and according to the size of the SATD cost, sorting the original intra prediction modes in the original intra prediction mode set, selecting a plurality of original intra prediction modes from the side having a small SATD cost, and generating a candidate intra prediction mode set.).
It would have been obvious to the person of having ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Zhang in to the teaching of Chang in order to the improve the coding efficiency, reducing the coding cost and yield predictable result.
Regarding claim 2. Claim 2 has similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and is met by the references as discussed above, and has been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejection to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3. Chang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the determining M first intra-prediction modes based on a prediction cost corresponding to each of N first intra-prediction modes comprises:
calculating a prediction cost corresponding to each of the N first intra-prediction modes (0093; Figure 2);
obtaining the top M−1 first intra-prediction modes from the N first intra-prediction modes according to an ascending order of prediction costs (0093; Figure 2); and
determining the M first intra-prediction modes based on a preset Planar mode and the top M−1 first intra-prediction modes (0093; Figure 2);
wherein the Planar mode is the 1st intra-prediction mode in the M first intra-prediction modes (0093; Figure 2; “[0093] As described above, two MPM lists may be used: one is the primary MPM (PMPM) list with 6 entries and another is a secondary MPM (SMPM) list with 16 entries. According to the techniques of this disclosure, video encoder 200 and video decoder 300 may construct a general MPM list with 22 entries, where the first 6 entries in this general MPM list are included into the PMPM list, and the rest of the 22 entries are set to be the SMPM list. The first entry (e.g., the ordinal first entry) in the general MPM list is Planar mode. The remaining entries are composed of the intra modes of the left (L), above (A), below-left (BL), above-right (AR), and above-left (AL) neighbouring blocks, as shown in FIG. 3, the directional modes offset from the first two available directional modes of neighbouring blocks, and default modes. If the CU block is rectangular and vertically oriented, i.e., when height is greater than width, the order of neighbouring blocks checked for available intra prediction modes is A, L, BL, AR, AL. Otherwise, the order is L, A, BL, AR, AL.”).
Regarding claim 4. Chang discloses the method according to claim 3, wherein the prediction cost corresponding to the first intra-prediction mode is a sum of absolute transformed differences between a predicted value of a template corresponding to a current block and a reconstructed value of the template, or the prediction cost corresponding to the first intra-prediction mode is a sum of absolute values between the predicted value of the template corresponding to the current block and the reconstructed value of the template.
Regarding claims 5-6. Claims 5-6 have similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the references as discussed above, and have been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejections above.
Regarding claim 7. Chang discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein before the determining M first intra-prediction modes based on a prediction cost corresponding to each of N first intra-prediction modes, the method further comprises:
obtaining a first identifier (0084 and 0093-0096);
in a case that the first identifier indicates enabling Planar independent coding, determining that the N first intra-prediction modes comprise a Planar mode (0084 and 0093-0096); and
in a case that the first identifier indicates not enabling Planar independent coding, determining that the N first intra-prediction modes comprise no Planar mode (0084 and 0093-0096).
Regarding claims 8-10. Claims 8-10 have similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the references as discussed above, and have been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejections above.
Regarding claim 11. The method according to claim 1, wherein the M first intra-prediction modes are located before the K second intra-prediction modes in the MPM list (0084 and 0093-0096).
Regarding claim 12. The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
obtaining a second identifier and an intra-prediction mode index (0084 and 0093-0096); and
in a case that the second identifier is used to indicate determining the target intra-prediction mode based on the PMPM list comprised in the MPM list, that the intra-prediction mode index is used to indicate determining the 1st mode in the PMPM list as the target intra-prediction mode, and that the 1st mode in the PMPM list is a Planar mode, determining the Planar mode as the target intra-prediction mode (0084 and 0093-0096).
Regarding claims 13-14. Claims 13-14 have similar limitations as to those treated in the above rejections, and are met by the references as discussed above, and have been rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used in the rejections above.
Regarding claims 15-17. Apparatus (terminal) claims 15-17 are drawn to the apparatus corresponding to the method of using same as claimed in claims 1, 3 and 4. Therefore, apparatus claims 15-17 correspond to method claims 1, 3 and 4 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claims 18-20. Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims 18-20 are drawn to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of using the corresponding to the method of using the same as claimed in claims 1, 3 and 4. Therefore, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims 18-20 correspond to the method claims 1, 3 and 4, and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASMAMAW G TARKO whose telephone number is (571)272-7493. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/ASMAMAW G TARKO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights