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
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the correspondence on 03/30/2026. Applicant’s argument, filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered and carefully considered. Claims 1-9 are pending.
The application filed on 09/16/2025 is a CON of 18/808,795 08/19/2024, is a CON of 18/498,597 10/31/2023 PAT 12231610, is a CON of 18/314,965 05/10/2023 PAT 11902668, is a CON of 17/579,225 01/19/2022 PAT 11696035, is a CON of 17/027,154 09/21/2020 PAT 11483476, is a CON of 16/372,287 04/01/2019, is a CON of PCT/KR2017/011138 10/10/2017, has priority to KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0127887 10/04/2016, KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2016-0129386 10/06/2016 and KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 10-2017-0090616 07/17/2017.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in the 03/30/2026 considered but moot based on the current rejection.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-7 refer to "A method for decoding an image”, Claim 8 refers to "A method for encoding an image”, Claim 9 refers to "A method for transmitting a bitstream”. Claims 8-9 are similarly rejected in light of rejection of claims 1-7, any obvious combination of the rejection of claims 1-7, or the differences are obvious to the ordinary skill in the art. It is well known in the art that encoding and decoding are reverse processes of video coding method/system.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son et al. (US 20180220149 A1), hereinafter Son, in view of An et al. (US 20180288446 A1), hereinafter An, further in view of Son et al. (US 20180241995 A1), hereinafter Son2.
Regarding claim 1, Son discloses a method for decoding an image, the method comprising (Abstract): receiving a bitstream including information on a current block included in the image (Fig. 2, Bitstream); determining an intra prediction mode for the current block ([0052], prediction mode); and performing intra prediction for the current block based on the intra prediction mode ([0074], perform intra prediction), and wherein the bitstream comprises information on rotation of the image ([0137], flag, rotation).
Son discloses all the elements of claim 1 but Son does not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section wherein the intra prediction mode for the current block is determined using prediction in case the current block is a luma block and the intra prediction mode for the current block is determined without using prediction in case the current block is a chroma block.
However, An from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein the intra prediction mode for the current block is determined using prediction in case the current block is a luma block and the intra prediction mode for the current block is determined without using prediction in case the current block is a chroma block ([0009], luma and chroma relation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son to incorporate the teachings of An to improve coding efficiency (An, [0010). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Son in view of An discloses all the elements of claim 1 but they do not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section based on prediction mode information included in the bitstream.
However, Son2 from the same or similar endeavor teaches based on prediction mode information included in the bitstream ([0009]-[0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son in view of An to incorporate the teachings of Son2 to perform prediction more accurately (Son2, Abstract). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of An further in view of Son2 further in view of Yoo et al. (US 20180184082 A1), hereinafter Yoo.
Regarding claim 2, Son in view of An further in view of Son2 discloses all the elements of claim 2 but they not appear to explicitly disclose in the cited section the method of claim 1, wherein the intra prediction mode for the current block is determined based on an MPM candidate group having one or more intra prediction modes.
However, Yoo from the same or similar endeavor teaches wherein the intra prediction mode for the current block is determined based on an MPM candidate group having one or more intra prediction modes ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Son in view of An further in view of Son2 to incorporate the teachings of Yoo to enhance the compression efficiency (Yoo, [0023]). Similar reasoning/motivation of modification can be applied/extended to the other related/dependent claims.
Regarding claim 3, Son in view of An further in view of Son2 further in view of Yoo discloses the method of claim 2, wherein a number of total intra prediction modes available for the current block is equal to or less than 10 and the MPM candidate group is composed of one mode (Yoo, [0010]-[0011], [0296]).
Regarding claim 4, Son in view of An further in view of Son2 further in view of Yoo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, when a plurality of neighboring intra prediction modes from a plurality of neighboring blocks to the current block are used for composition of the MPM candidate group, priorities between the plurality of neighboring intra prediction modes are applied (Yoo, [0010]-[0011], [0491]).
Regarding claim 5, Son in view of An further in view of Son2 further in view of Yoo discloses the method of claim 2, wherein a number of intra prediction modes included in the MPM candidate group is determined based on a size of the current block or a color component of the current block (Yoo, [0232]-[0234]).
Regarding claim 6, Son in view of An further in view of Son2 further in view of Yoo discloses the method of claim 2, wherein, in case a number of available intra prediction modes for a neighboring block to the current block is different from that for the current block, a neighboring intra prediction mode of the neighboring block is modified when composing the MPM candidate group (Yoo, [0487]-[0492]).
Regarding claim 7, Son in view of An further in view of Son2 further in view of Yoo discloses the method of claim 6, the neighboring intra prediction mode of the neighboring block is modified to a DC mode (Yoo, [0315]).
Regarding claim 8-9, See Examiner’s Note.
Conclusion
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 MOHAMMAD J RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7190. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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.
/Mohammad J Rahman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights