DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the amendments filed on 19 MAY 2026 and the Information Disclosure Statement.
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 05/22/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claim 7 has been amended. Claim 8 has been canceled. No claim has been added. Claims 1-7 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 MAY 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2018/0063553 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”), Applicant alleges:
A. “Zhang, par. [0098], emphasis added. In particular, Zhang explicitly discloses that the DM (not the DC mode) is used for predicting the selected luma PU (not “chroma block”).
It is emphasized that Claim 1 recites “the prediction mode being a mode for predicting the current chroma block from a luma block corresponding to the current chroma block.” Emphasis added.
The mere listing of the DC mode or a DM that is used for predicting the luma PU does not, and cannot, anticipate the claimed feature “wherein the first prediction sample for the current chroma block is predicted by performing a non-directional (DC) prediction mode.” (Remarks, pp. 2-3.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. To show the correlation with the luma block, ¶ [0152] of Zhang was provided, disclosing, “a candidate list containing DM intra prediction modes for a chroma block based on the intra prediction modes used in the corresponding luma block.” Emphasis added. It is clear from Zhang’s disclosure the DM prediction is of the chroma block and the mode is selected from the corresponding luma block, as per ¶ [0152]. Applicant further remarks the claimed prediction requires a non-directional (DC) prediction mode. The rejection cites Zhang, ¶ [0098] to show that not only is DM an option, but the intra prediction modes also includes a DC prediction mode, which is available for both the chroma component and the luma component. For this reason, the Examiner stated in the rejection, “[…] a DM that indicates the corresponding luma block used a DC mode.” When applying a DM prediction, the prediction of the luma component can be a DC mode, which would then be applied to the chroma component. For the reasons stated above, the rejection is maintained.
B. “Regarding the claimed “first prediction sample” and “second prediction sample,” the Examiner referred to Zhang’s FIG. 7 depicting an angular mode including a first prediction sample L and the second prediction sample R. See OA at page 4. However, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, Zhang fails to explicitly disclose, otherwise teach or suggest, that the first prediction sample L is “predicted by performing a non-directional (DC) prediction mode” and the second prediction sample R is “obtained based on the luma block,” as Claim 1 recites.” (Remarks, p. 3.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each of first prediction sample L and second prediction sample R represent previously predicted samples. As per the response to argument A above, Zhang discloses prediction techniques including a DC prediction mode and being “based” on the luma block. See Zhang, FIG.S. 11A-11B and 13A-13B, and ¶¶ [0098] and [0152]. The argument provides no additional rationale for consideration and therefore, the rejection is maintained.
C. “Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, Zhang is entirely silent about producing any “final” third prediction sample based on the first and second prediction samples L and R, let alone that “final” third prediction sample is obtained from two samples that are predicted or obtained differently (note “the first prediction sample … is predicted by performing a non-directional (DC) prediction mode” and “the second prediction sample for the current chroma block is obtained based on the luma block…”).” (Remarks, p. 4.)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, because a person having ordinary skill in the art of compression knows when a plurality of samples are utilized (e.g., a first and second prediction samples L and R), then the plurality of samples are used together to produce a resulting sample (i.e., a final sample). Said resulting sample represents the claimed final third prediction sample. For instance, when using an angular prediction that is not purely horizontal or vertical, an interpolation between two samples can be used to produce a third sample and said third sample is the final sample used as the predictor. See Zhang, ¶ [0097]. Applicant further merely states without articulating any rationale that neither the first prediction sample nor the second prediction sample are taught by Zhang; however, Zhang does disclose both prediction samples as per the same rationale of arguments A and B applies. For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2018/0063553 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus (FIG. 3, video decoder 30. [0033], “process that processing circuitry of a video decoding device may perform”), the image decoding method comprising:
receiving a bitstream including information on a current image ([0084], “video decoder 30 receives an encoded video bitstream that represents video blocks of an encoded video slice and associated syntax elements from video encoder 20”);
obtaining a current block by dividing the current image ([0049], “A video frame or picture may be partitioned into one or more slices. Each treeblock may be split into coding units (CUs) according to a quadtree.” FIG. 10 illustrates an example of splitting with a quad tree binary tree structure. [0051], “Syntax data associated with a coded bitstream may define a maximum number of times a treeblock may be split, referred to as a maximum CU depth, and may also define a minimum size of the coding nodes. Accordingly, a bitstream may also define a smallest coding unit (SCU)”);
determining a prediction mode of a current chroma block corresponding to the current block, the prediction mode being a mode for predicting the current chroma block from a luma block corresponding to the current chroma block ([0152], “video decoder 30 may generate a candidate list containing DM intra prediction modes for a chroma block based on the intra prediction modes used in the corresponding luma block.” [0154], “video decoder 30 may increase the number of candidate modes that can be used for encoding and decoding of a chroma block, in instances where the DM mode is selected for the coding of the chroma block.” Table 2 depicts a most probable mode (MPM) list of 5 candidates, including derived mode (DM));
obtaining a first prediction sample for the current chroma block based on the determined prediction mode of the current chroma block (FIG. 7 depicts an angular mode including a first prediction sample L and a second prediction sample R and using them to produce a final third prediction sample for predicting the current block. Note, the MPM candidate selected being a DM with an angular mode);
obtaining a second prediction sample for the current chroma block based on the determined prediction mode of the current chroma block (FIG. 7 depicts an angular mode including a first prediction sample L and a second prediction sample R and using them to produce a final third prediction sample for predicting the current block. Note, the MPM candidate selected being a DM with an angular mode); and
generating a third prediction sample for the current chroma block based on the first prediction sample for the current chroma block and the second prediction sample for the current chroma block (FIG. 7 depicts an angular mode including a first prediction sample L and a second prediction sample R and using them to produce a final third prediction sample for predicting the current block. Note, the MPM candidate selected being a DM with an angular mode. Furthermore, multiple modes and non-directional modes can result in the third prediction, such as a DM prediction mode using DC, in which the first prediction sample and second prediction sample are still generated from reference samples of neighboring blocks),
wherein the first prediction sample for the current chroma block is predicted by performing a non-directional (DC) prediction mode ([0098], “one intra-coded chroma PU can be predicted using a mode selected from one of five (5) modes, including the planar mode (INTRA_PLANAR), Vertical mode (INTRA_ANGULAR26), Horizontal mode (INTRA_ANGULAR10), DC mode (INTRA_DC) and Derived mode (DM).” Note, the neighboring block for which the prediction sample is obtained from can be generated from the direct signaling of a DC mode or a DM that indicates the corresponding luma block used a DC mode), and
wherein the second prediction sample for the current chroma block is obtained based on the luma block corresponding to the current chroma block ([0154], “video decoder 30 may increase the number of candidate modes that can be used for encoding and decoding of a chroma block, in instances where the DM mode is selected for the coding of the chroma block.” Note, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “obtained based on the luma block corresponding to the current block” is any sample obtained in a DM prediction mode, because the DM prediction mode uses the luma block corresponding to the current chroma block. [0010], “a plurality of derived modes (DMs) available for predicting a luma block of the video data are also available for predicting a chroma block of the video data that corresponds to the luma block. The method further includes forming a candidate list of prediction modes with respect to the chroma block.” See FIGS. 11A-11B and 13A-13B for sharing prediction modes between the luma block corresponding to the current chroma block).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein the second prediction sample for the chroma block is obtained further based on correlation information between the current chroma block and the corresponding luma block (FIGS. 11A-11B and 13A-13B show correlation information based on the size and available prediction modes for DM according to the luma block).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses every limitation of claim 2, as out lined above. Additionally, Zhang discloses wherein the correlation information is obtained from a bitstream ([0078], “Video encoder 20 may include in the transmitted bitstream configuration data, which may include a plurality of intra-prediction mode index tables and a plurality of modified intra-prediction mode index tables (also referred to as codeword mapping tables), definitions of encoding contexts for various blocks, and indications of a most probable intra-prediction mode, an intra-prediction mode index table, and a modified intra-prediction mode index table to use for each of the contexts”).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1; however, written from the encoder perspective instead of the decoder, which is well-known as having the same operations in reverse order. For instance, Zhang discloses the same intra prediction process used for both encoding and decoding. See Zhang, ¶¶ [0093-0098], and [0146]. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations are the same as those in claim 6. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 6 applies equally as well to claim 7. Additionally, Zhang discloses a method of transmitting a bitstream ([0081], “the encoded bitstream may be transmitted to another device (e.g., video decoder 30)”); and transmitting the bitstream ([0081], “the encoded bitstream may be transmitted to another device (e.g., video decoder 30)”).
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 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.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0063553 A1 (hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0220138 A1 (hereinafter “He”).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses every limitation of claim 2, as outlined above. Zhang fails to expressly disclose wherein the second prediction sample for the current chroma block is obtained by applying the correlation information to a sample value of a luma component calculated based on sample values within the corresponding luma block.
However, He teaches wherein the second prediction sample for the current chroma block is obtained by applying the correlation information to a sample value of a luma component calculated based on sample values within the corresponding luma block ([0061], “Cross-plane filtering for chroma enhancement may include applying high pass filtering to a luma component. An output of the high pass filtering may be added to the chroma component to determine an enhanced chroma component.” [0063], “Cross-plane filtering may be applied at different stages of the intra coding process.” Equations 7 and 8 modify the luma sample to then be applied to the chroma sample).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the luma sample, as taught by He ([0063]), in Zhang’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Zhang’s invention, by incorporating He’s invention, to use high frequency information from luma to improve and enhance chroma quality (He: [0060]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang and He disclose every limitation of claim 3, as outlined above. Additionally, He discloses wherein the sample value of the luma component is calculated based on subsampling and averaging for the sample values within the corresponding luma block ([0075] describes chroma format sampling and calculating a luma sample position using scaling and intra predictions being used, including non-directional modes that use averaging). The same motivation of claim 3 applies to claim 5.
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 STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 5PM EST.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights