DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed on 19 AUGUST 2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 5-7 have been amended. Claims 2-4 have been cancelled. No claim has been added. Claims 1 and 5-7 are pending and herein examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Examiner contacted Applicant’s representative to discuss an examiner’s amendment in view of the allowable subject matter in parent U.S. Patent 12,425,575 and to request a terminal disclaimer in view of co-pending application 19/562,388. Applicant’s representative requested an action on the merits and to postpone filing a terminal disclaimer. See attached PTO-413B.
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) 1, 6, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0091825 A1 (hereinafter “Zhao”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0289288 A1 (hereinafter “Leleannec”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses an image decoding method ([0006], “a method of processing a block of video data”) performed by an image decoding apparatus ([0030], “A video decoder may generate predictive blocks using an interpolation filter and generate coding blocks of video data using the residual blocks and the predictive blocks”), the image decoding method comprising:
receiving a bitstream including information on a current image ([0072], “Video decoder 30 may receive a bitstream generated by video encoder 20. In addition, video decoder 30 may parse the bitstream to obtain syntax elements from the bitstream. Video decoder 30 may reconstruct the pictures of the video data based at least in part on the syntax elements obtained from the bitstream”);
obtaining a current block by dividing the current image ([0156], “prediction processing unit 1300 may perform partitioning to divide the CTBs of the CTU into progressively-smaller blocks. The smaller blocks may be coding blocks of CUs. For example, prediction processing unit 1300 may partition a CTB associated with a CTU according to a tree structure.” Note, the coding unit being actively processed is the current block);
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 ([0095], “With LM prediction mode, video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may predict chroma samples based on reconstructed luma samples of the same block by using a linear model.” Note, LM prediction is an intra prediction mode. See FIG. 14, video decoder 30 with intra-prediction processing unit 1466);
obtaining a first prediction sample for the current chroma block based on the determined prediction mode of the current chroma block ([0099], “For a target N×N chroma block, when both left and above causal samples are available, the total involved reference samples number I is equal to 2N. In the example of FIG. 12B, luma block 1210 has a size of 2N×2N for target chroma block 1200 of FIG. 12A. When only left or above causal samples are available, the total involved reference samples number I is equal to N”);
obtaining a second prediction sample for the current chroma block based on the determined prediction mode of the current chroma block ([0096], “recL(i,j) represents the down sampled reconstructed luma samples of the same block”); 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 ([0095], “predC(i,j)=α·recL(i,j)+β”),
wherein the first prediction sample for the current chroma block is predicted by performing a non-directional (DC) prediction mode (FIGS. 3, 7, and 9 each depict DC mode as an intra prediction, which can be used for samples to be reconstructed and used by the LM prediction module),
wherein the second prediction sample for the current chroma block is obtained by applying correlation information between the current chroma block and the luma block to a sample value of a luma component calculated based on sample values within the luma block corresponding to the current chroma block ([0095], “predC(i,j)=α·recL(i,j)+β.” [0097], “Video encoder 20 and/or video decoder 30 may derive parameters α and β in the above equation by minimizing regression error between the neighboring reconstructed luma and chroma samples around the current block”)
.
Zhao fails to expressly disclose wherein the correlation information is obtained from the bitstream in response to the prediction mode of the current chroma block being determined as the mode for predicting the current chroma block from the luma block corresponding to the current chroma block.
However, Leleannec teaches wherein the correlation information is obtained from the bitstream in response to the prediction mode of the current chroma block being determined as the mode for predicting the current chroma block from the luma block corresponding to the current chroma block ([0062], “The parameters α and β may be derived from spatially neighboring reconstructed luma and chroma samples at both encoder and decoder to avoid overhead signaling. In a variant, the parameters α and β may be derived from the source luma and chroma samples at encoder, coded and transmitted to a decoder.” Note, Zhao determines α and β parameters when performing LM prediction (i.e., “in response to”) and the combination relies on determining the parameters from the bitstream rather than at the decoder. In addition, Zhao describes signaling syntax elements in the bitstream for determining the intra prediction mode. See Zhao, [0179]).
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 determined the correlation information from the bitstream when using LM prediction, as taught by Leleannec ([0062]), in Zhao’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Zhao’s invention, by incorporating Leleannec’s invention, because it would have been “obvious to try” given the decoder either determines the correlation information itself or the information is externally received, such as from the encoder, when performing LM intra prediction. Additionally, Leleannec describes the trade-off of additional signal overhead (i.e., transmitting in the bitstream) versus additional computational resource requirements by the decoder (i.e., determining locally in the decoder). These two options are well-known alternatives, as per Leleannec’s disclosure, and are therefore considered obvious variations to a person having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations are the same as those in claim 1; however, written from the encoder perspective instead of the decoder perspective. 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 1; however, written from the encoder perspective instead of the decoder perspective. Therefore, the same rationale of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 7.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0091825 A1 (hereinafter “Zhao”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0289288 A1 (hereinafter “Leleannec”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0328013 A1 (hereinafter “Budagavi”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhao and Leleannec disclose every limitation of claim 1, as outlined above. Zhao and Leleannec fail to expressly disclose wherein the sample value of the luma component is calculated based on subsampling and averaging for the sample values within the corresponding luma block.
However, Budagavi teaches wherein the sample value of the luma component is calculated based on subsampling and averaging for the sample values within the corresponding luma block ([0031], “for LM mode intra-prediction, the samples of the reconstructed luma block and the neighboring reconstructed luma samples are down sampled as shown in FIG. 2. In general, for the down sampling, pairs of pixels in every other column are averaged.” Note, Zhao’s FIG. 12B describes the same luma down-sampling of FIG. 2 in Budagavi. Zhao, [0096], “recL(i,j) represents the down sampled reconstructed luma samples.” However, Zhao does not go into detail on how down sampling is performed).
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 down sampled by subsampling and averaging, as taught by Budagavi ([0031]), in Zhao and Leleannec’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Zhao and Leleannec’s invention, by incorporating Budagavi’s invention, because it is a well-known technique for down-sampling to improve predictive techniques in the same way. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C).
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 5-7 of copending Application No. 19/562,388 (reference application) (hereinafter “Application ‘388”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is entirely anticipated by Application ‘388.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The following table exemplifies the similarities between the instant application and Application ‘388.
Instant Application
Application ‘388
Claim 1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
Claim 1. An image decoding method performed by an image decoding apparatus, the image decoding method comprising:
receiving a bitstream including information on a current image;
receiving a bitstream including information on a current image;
obtaining a current block by dividing the current image;
obtaining a current block by dividing the current image;
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;
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;
obtaining a first prediction sample for the current chroma block based on the determined prediction mode of the current chroma block;
obtaining a first prediction sample for the current chroma block based on the determined prediction mode of the current chroma block;
obtaining a second prediction sample for the current chroma block based on the determined prediction mode of the current chroma block; and
obtaining a second prediction sample for the current chroma block based on the determined prediction mode of the current chroma block;
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,
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,
obtaining a quantized transform coefficient for the current chroma block;
obtaining a transform coefficient for the current chroma block by inverse-quantizing the quantized transform coefficient;
generating a residual sample for the current chroma block by inverse-transforming the transform coefficient; and
reconstructing the current chroma block based on the residual sample and the third prediction sample,
wherein the first prediction sample for the current chroma block is predicted by performing a non-directional (DC) prediction mode,
wherein the first prediction sample for the current chroma block is predicted by performing a non-directional (DC) prediction mode,
wherein the second prediction sample for the current chroma block is obtained by applying correlation information between the current chroma block and the luma block to a sample value of a luma component calculated based on sample values within the luma block corresponding to the current chroma block, and
wherein the second prediction sample for the current chroma block is obtained by applying correlation information between the current chroma block and the luma block to a sample value of a luma component calculated based on sample values within the luma block corresponding to the current chroma block, and
wherein the correlation information is obtained from the bitstream in response to the prediction mode of the current chroma block being determined as the mode for predicting the current chroma block from the luma block corresponding to the current chroma block.
wherein the correlation information is obtained from the bitstream in response to the prediction mode of the current chroma block being determined as the mode for predicting the current chroma block from the luma block corresponding to the current chroma block.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2013/0188703 A1 (hereinafter “Liu”) – Discloses a Linear Model (LM) mode intra prediction with luma samples that are down sampled by performing a sliding average of groups of samples. See Liu, ¶¶ [0037-0039].
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