www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address; COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/906,993
`
`06/19/2020
`
`Che-Wei KUO
`
`735256.426
`
`3294
`
`Seed IP Law Group LLP/Panasonic (PIPCA)
`701 5th Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, WA 98104
`
`CHANG, DANIEL
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`
`2487
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/06/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOeAction @ SeedIP.com
`
`pairlinkdktg @seedip.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/906,993
`KUO et al.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`DANIEL CHANG
`2487
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEofthis communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133}.
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 02/03/2022.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1,8-20,27-36 44-57 ,64-72,77-81 and 86-89 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1,8-20,27-36 44-57 ,64-72,77-81 and 86-89 is/are rejected.
`(1 Claim(s)__is/are objectedto.
`C} Claim(s)
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) ([] Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3) (J Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`4)
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220503
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA 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
`
`This action is in response to the remark entered on February 3, 2022.
`
`Claims 1, 8-20, 27-36, 44-57, 64-72, 77-81 & 86-89 are pending in the instant
`
`application.
`
`Claims 1, 20, 36, 57, 72, and 81 are amended.
`
`Claims 2-7, 21-26, 37-43, 58-63, 73-76, and 82-85 are cancelled.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's remarksfiled 02/03/2022, page 14, regarding the provisional
`
`nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 8-20, 27-36, 44-57, 64-72, 77-81 &
`
`86-89 have been fully considered and are acknowledged. Examiner acknowledges
`
`Applicant's wish to defer addressing the double patenting rejections until later.
`
`Applicant's remarksfiled 02/03/2022, pages 14-17, regarding the rejection of
`
`claim 1, and similarly claims 20, 36, 57, 72, and 81 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been
`
`fully considered but they are not persuasive.
`
`The Applicant asserts that Chuang doesnot teach or discuss, “determining
`
`whether a luma VPDU is split and a corresponding chroma VPDU is split.”
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 3
`
`The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraphs [0060]-[0069], Chuang
`
`discusses CU syntax that signal whether luma CUs and corresponding chroma CUs ina
`
`VPDU are further split accordingly with a tree arrangement, including QT, BT, and TT.
`
`Chuang explains that the syntax include syntax flags luma_split_end and
`
`chroma_split_end that signify if a luma CU and chroma CU, respectively, are further
`
`split or not. According to Figs. 8-9, and paragraphs [0076]-[0077], the flow chart
`
`indicates the processor receiving these syntax elements to determine data dependency
`
`between one or more leaf blocks partitioned in a tree, and thus from the syntaxes is the
`
`determination made on, “whether a luma VPDU is split and a corresponding chroma
`
`VPDU is split.” Furthermore, in Paragraph [0063], Chuang explains when the
`
`chroma_split_end is false and the luma CU stops split, the chroma CU can be further
`
`split, and when this happens, Paragraph [0069] indicates that LM mode is disabled in
`
`the situation where the luma partition is stopped and the chroma is further split. Thus,
`
`Chuang teaches, “determining whether a luma VPDU is split and a corresponding
`
`chroma VPDU is split.”
`
`Therefore the rejection of claims 1, 20, 36, 57, 72, and 81 is maintained under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Applicant’s remarksfiled 02/03/2022, page 17, with respect to the rejection of
`
`claims 8-19, 27-35, 44-56, 64-71, 77-80 & 86-89 under 35 USC 103 have beenfully
`
`considered, but they are not persuasive.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 4
`
`Applicant relies on the patentability of the claims from which these claims depend
`
`to traverse the rejection without prejudice to any further basis for patentability of these
`
`claims based on the additional elements recited.
`
`Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant because the combination of Xu and
`
`Chuang teach independentclaims 1, 20, 36, 57, 72, and 81 as outlined below. Thus,
`
`claims 8-19, 27-35, 44-56, 64-71, 77-80 & 86-89 are also rejected for the similar
`
`reasons as outlined below.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. — An elementin a claim for a combination may be
`expressed as a meansor step for performing a specified function without the recital of
`structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the
`corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`An elementin a claim for a combination may be expressed as a meansor step for performing
`a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and
`suchclaim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts
`described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be
`
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of
`
`a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the
`
`description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is invoked.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 5
`
`As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the
`
`following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`(A)—the claim limitation uses the term “means”or “step” or a term used as a substitute
`
`for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-
`
`structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed
`
`function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholderis modified by functional
`
`language, typically, but not alwayslinked by the transition word “for” (e.g.,
`
`“means for’) or anotherlinking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so
`
`that’: and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means”or“step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient
`
`structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`Use of the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a
`
`rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
`
`limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or
`
`acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Absenceof the word “means”(or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable
`
`presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim
`
`limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 6
`
`paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting
`
`sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
`
`Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means”(or “step”) are
`
`being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph,
`
`except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this
`
`application that do not use the word “means”(or “step”) are not being interpreted under
`
`35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise
`
`indicated in an Office action.
`
`This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word
`
`“means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35
`
`U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder
`
`that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform
`
`the recited function and the generic placeholder is not precededby a structural modifier.
`
`Suchclaim limitation(s) is/are:
`
`“a block splitter, which, in operation, splits [...],” in claim 20;
`
`“an intra predictor, which, in operation, predicts [...],” in claims 20 & 57;
`
`“an inter prediction, which, in operation, predicts [...],” in claims 20 & 57;
`
`“a loop filter, which, in operation, filters [...],” in claims 20 & 57;
`
`“a transformer, which, in operation, transforms [...],” in claim 20;
`
`“a quantizer, which, in operation, quantizes[...],” in claim 20;
`
`“an inverse quantizer, which, in operation, inverse quantizes[...],” in claim 57;
`
`“an inverse transformer, which, in operation, inverse transforms [...],” in claim 57;
`
`and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 7
`
`“an output, which, in operation, outputs[...],” in claim 57.
`
`Becausethis/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to
`
`cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the
`
`claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
`
`If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35
`
`U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
`
`(1) amend the
`
`claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA
`
`35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the
`
`claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s)
`
`sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being
`
`interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
`
`Double Patenting
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
`
`doctrine groundedin 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 8
`
`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 timelyfiled 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 §§ 706.02(I)(1) -
`
`706.02(I)(3) 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 USPTOInternet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be
`
`used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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
`
`befilled 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 Uspoio cov/natents/orocess/fle/efs/quidance/aTD-info-Lisn.
`
`Co-Pending Application 16/875,553
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 9
`
`Claims 1, 8-20, 27-36, 44-57, 64-72, 77-81 & 86-89 are rejected on the ground
`
`of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 & 6 of Co-
`
`Pending Application 16/875,553 in view of Chuanget al. (WO 2020/098786 A1, with
`
`provisional benefit to 62/768,205) (hereinafter Chuang).
`
`Instant - 16/906,993
`
`Co-Pending 16/875,553
`
`1. An encoder, comprising:
`
`1. (Currently Amended) An encoder,
`
`circuiiry; anc
`
`comprising:
`
`cHycuiiry; and
`
`memory coupled to the circultry:
`
`memory coupled to the circuitry;
`
`wherein the circultry, in operation, performs|wherein the circuitry, in operation,
`
`a block of chroma samples
`
`the following:
`
`performs the following:
`
`determining whether a first luma virtual
`
`determining whether to soli a current
`
`pipeline decoding unit (VPDU) is split
`
`luma virtual pipeline decocing unit
`
`into smaller blocks and whether a
`
`(VFDLD into smalier blocks
`
`corresponding second chroma VPDU is
`
`split into smaller blocks;
`
`in response to a determination the
`
`in response to 4 determination nat ic
`
`first luma VPDU is notsplit into smaller
`
`soit the current iuma VPDU inte
`
`blocks and a determination
`
`smatier
`
`the corresponding second chroma VPDU | blocks, predicting a block of chroma
`
`is split into smaller blocks, predicting
`
`samples without using luma samples:
`
`

`

`Page 10
`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`of the corresponding second chroma
`
`VPDU without using luma samples;
`
`in response to a determination the
`
`in response to a determination to split
`
`first luma VPDU is split into smaller blocks=|the luma VP DU into smatier blocks,
`
`and the determination the corresponding|frediciing the block of chroma samples
`
`second chroma VPDU is split into
`
`using luma samples: and
`
`chroma samples.
`
`smaller blocks, predicting the block of
`
`chroma samples of the corresponding
`
`second chroma VPDU using luma
`
`samples;
`
`in responseto the determination the
`
`first luma VPDU is notsplit into smaller
`
`blocks and a determination the
`
`corresponding second chroma VPDU is
`
`not split into smaller blocks, predicting
`
`the block of chroma samples of the
`
`corresponding second chroma VPDU
`
`using luma samples; and
`
`encoding the block using the predicted
`
`encoding the block using the predicted
`
`chroma samples.
`
`As noted above, although the claims are notidentical, they are not patentably
`
`distinct from each other becausethe instant application claims determining whether a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 11
`
`first luma virtual pipeline decoding unit (VPDU) is split into smaller blocks and whethera
`
`corresponding second chroma VPDUts split into smaller blocks and in response to the
`
`determination the first luma VPDUts not split into smaller blocks and a determination
`
`the corresponding second chroma VPDUis notsplit into smaller blocks, predicting the
`
`block of chroma samples of the corresponding second chroma VPDUusing
`
`luma samples. However theselimitations are knownin the art as described in Chuang,
`
`wherein Paragraphs [0060]-[0069] and provisional 62/768,205 describe if luma CU and
`
`chroma CU of VPDU asfirst VPDU and second VPDU, respectively, are split using
`
`syntax flags luma_split_end and chroma_split_end being 0 or 1, and if they stop splitting
`
`at the same level, and also wherein when chroma_split_end is false and the luma CU
`
`stops split, chroma CU can befurther split into second chroma VPDUs that are further
`
`split, (e.g. the chroma_split_end being all false). It would have been obvious to the
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
`
`to modify the encoder of 16/875,553 to implement the linear mode techniques of
`
`Chuang, to infer chroma samples from luma samples powerful to compress chroma
`
`componentdata reducing data bandwidth and increasing coding efficiency as Chuang
`
`describes in Paragraph [0066] and supportedin pg. 11 of 62/768,205).
`
`Regarding claims 8-19, although the claims are not identical, the further
`
`limitations would have been obvious for the same reasons of obviousness as set forth in
`
`the rejections outlined below with respect to Chuang.
`
`Instant - 16/906,993
`
`Co-Pending 16/875,553
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Page 12
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`
`20. An encoder, comprising:
`
`S, (Gurrently Amended} An encoder,
`
`comprising
`
`a block splitter, which, in operation, spits
`
`a block solitter, which, in operation, splits
`
`a first image into a olurality of blocks:
`
`a first image into a plurality of blocks:
`
`an intra predictor, which, in operation,
`
`an inira predictor, which, in operation,
`
`predicts blocks inchided in the first image,
`
`using reference blocks iriciuded in the
`
`using refererice blocks included in the
`
`frst image:
`
`first image:
`
`predicts blocks included in the first image,
`
`coelicients:
`
`an inter precicior, which, in operation,
`
`an inter predictor, which, in operation,
`
`predicis blocks included in the first image,
`
`predicts blacks included in the first image,
`
`using reference Dlocks included in a
`
`using reference blocks included in a
`
`second image cifferent fram the first
`
`second image different from the first
`
`image:
`
`mage:
`
`a loop filter, which, in operation, fers
`
`a loop filer, which, in operation, filters
`
`blocks included in the first image;
`
`blocks included in the first image:
`
`a transformer, which, in operation,
`
`a transformer, which, in operation,
`
`transforms a orediction error beiween an
`
`transforms a prediction error between an
`
`original signal and @ prediction signal
`
`original signal and 4 prediction signal
`
`generated by the intra precictar or the
`
`generaied oy the intra oredictor ar the
`
`inter predictor, io generate transform
`
`infer predictor, to generate transform
`
`costicients:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Page 13
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`
`4 quantizer, which, in operation,
`
`a quantizer, which, in operation,
`
`quantizes the transform coeHicients to
`
`quaniizes the transfarm coefficients to
`
`generale quantized coefficienis; and
`
`generate quantized coetlicients: and
`
`an entropy encoder, which, in operation,
`
`an entropy encoder, which, in operation,
`
`variable encodes the quantized
`
`variable encodes the quantized
`
`coeflicients to generate an encocec
`
`coe@tlicienis io generate an encoded
`
`bitstream including the encoded
`
`biistream including the encoded
`
`quantized coeticients and control
`
`quantized coefficients and contra
`
`information,
`
`information,
`
`wherein predicting a blockincludes:
`
`wherein predicting @ block includes:
`
`determining whether a first luma virtual
`
`Gelermining whether to spit a current
`
`pipeline decoding unit (VPDU) is split
`
`luma virtual ploeline decading unil
`
`into smaller blocks and whether
`
`iVPDUD inte smaller blocks;
`
`a corresponding second chroma VPDU
`
`is split into smaller blocks;
`
`samples wilhout using Juma samples; and
`
`in response to a determination the
`
`in response to 4 determination nal to split
`
`first luma VPDU is notsplit into smaller
`
`the current luma VPDU inte smaller
`
`blocks and a determination the
`
`blocks, precicting a block of chroma
`
`corresponding second chroma VPDU
`
`is split into smaller blocks,
`
`predicting the block of chroma samples
`
`of the corresponding second chroma
`
`VPDU without using luma samples;
`
`

`

`Page 14
`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`in response to a determination the
`
`in response to a determination to soit the
`
`first luma VPDU is split into smaller
`
`luma VPDU into smaller blocks,
`
`blocks and the determination the
`
`predicting the block of chroma samples
`
`corresponding second chroma VPDU|tising iuina samples.
`
`is split into smaller blocks,
`
`predicting the block of chroma
`
`samples of the corresponding second
`
`chroma VPDU using luma samples; and
`
`in responseto the determination the
`
`first luma VPDU is notsplit into
`
`smaller blocks and a determination the
`
`chroma VPDU using luma samples.
`
`corresponding second chroma VPDU
`
`is not split into smaller blocks,
`
`predicting the block of chroma
`
`samples of the corresponding second
`
`As noted above, although the claims are notidentical, they are not patentably
`
`distinct from each other becausethe instant application claims determining whether a
`
`first luma virtual pipeline decoding unit (VPDU) is split into smaller blocks and whether
`
`a corresponding second chroma VPDUis split into smaller blocks, in response to a
`
`determination the first luma VPDU is not split into smaller blocks and a determination
`
`the corresponding second chroma VPDUis split into smaller blocks, predicting the block
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 15
`
`of chroma samples of the corresponding second chroma VPDU without using
`
`luma samples, in response to a determination the first luma VPDU is split into smaller
`
`blocks and the determination the corresponding second chroma VPDUis split into
`
`smaller blocks, predicting the block of chroma samples of the corresponding second
`
`chroma VPDUusing luma samples, ari in response to ihe determination the firsi VPDU
`
`is not split into smailer blocks and a determination the second VPDU is not soli inte
`
`mailer block, predicting the Block of chroma samples using luma sarmpies. However
`
`these limitations are knownin the art as described in Chuang, wherein Paragraphs
`
`[0060]-[0069] and provisional 62/768,205 describe if luma CU and chroma CU of VPDU
`
`as first VPDU and second VPDU, respectively, are split using syntax flags
`
`luma_split_end and chroma_split_end being 0 or 1, andif they stop splitting at the same
`
`level, and also wherein when chroma_split_end is false and the luma CU stopssplit,
`
`chroma CU can befurther split into second chroma VPDUs that are further split,
`
`(e.g. the chroma_split_end being all false). It would have been obvious to the person of
`
`ordinaryskill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
`
`the encoder of 16/875,553 to implementthe linear mode techniques of Chuang, to infer
`
`chroma samples from luma samples powerful to compress chroma component data
`
`reducing data bandwidth andincreasing coding efficiency as Chuang describesin
`
`Paragraph [0066] and supported in pg. 11 of 62/768,205).
`
`Regarding claims 27-35, although the claims are notidentical, the further
`
`limitations would have been obvious for the same reasons of obviousness as set forth in
`
`the rejections outlined below with respect to Chuang.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 16
`
`Regarding claims 36 & 44-56, claims (86 & 44-56) are drawn to a decoder
`
`having limitations similar to the encoder of using the same as claimed in claim 1 treated
`
`in the below rejections, and therefore correspond to encoder claim 1. Furthermore,
`
`although the claims are notidentical, the further limitations would have been obvious for
`
`the same reasons of obviousnessas setforth in the rejections outlined below with
`
`respect to Chuang.
`
`Regarding claims 57 & 64-71, claims (57 & 64-71) are drawn to a decoding
`
`device having limitations similar to the encoder of using the same as claimed in claim 20
`
`treated in the below rejections, and therefore correspond to encoder claim 20.
`
`Furthermore, although the claims are notidentical, the further limitations would have
`
`been obvious for the same reasons of obviousnessassetforth in the rejections outlined
`
`below with respect to Chuang.
`
`Regarding claim 72 & 77-80, encoding method claims (72 & 77-80) correspond
`
`to encoder claims (1, 8, 12, 16 & 19), respectively, and therefore are also rejected for
`
`the same reasons of obviousness aslisted above.
`
`Regarding claim 81 & 86-89, decoding method claims (81 & 86-89) correspond
`
`to decoder claims (36, 44, 49, 53 & 56), respectively, and therefore are also rejected for
`
`the same reasons of obviousness aslisted above.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 17
`
`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 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
`
`obviousnessrejections setforth 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 of thistitle, if the differences
`between the claimed invention andthe prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole
`would have been obvious before the effectivefiling 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.
`
`Claims 1, 8-20, 27-36, 44-57, 64-72, 77-81 & 86-89 are rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2020/0037002 A1) (hereinafter
`
`Xu) in view of Chuangetal. (WO 2020/098786 A1, with provisional benefit to
`
`62/768,205) (hereinafter Chuang).
`
`Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses an encoder, comprising:
`
`circuitry; and memory coupled to the circuitry [Paragraphs [0100] & [0122],
`
`Embodiments may be implemented by processing circuitry executing program
`
`stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium];
`
`wherein the circuitry, in operation, performs the following:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 18
`
`determining a first luma virtual pipeline decoding unit (VPDU) [Paragraphs
`
`[0120]-[0129], Fig. 11, VPDUs signaled terms of luma samples in a coded video
`
`bitstream such as an SPSor PPS];
`
`predicting a block of chroma samples using luma samples [Paragraphs [0128]-
`
`[0129], Fig. 11, Chroma CUs canbeinferred from Luma CUs]; and
`
`encoding the block using the predicted chroma samples [Paragraphs [094], Fig.
`
`11, Prediction operation in encoding is performedin the unit of a prediction
`
`block, including chroma CTBs].
`
`However, Xu does notexplicitly disclose wherein the circuitry, in operation,
`
`performs the following:
`
`determining whether a first luma virtual pipeline decoding unit (VPDU) is split
`
`into smaller blocks and whether a corresponding second chroma VPDU is split into
`
`smaller blocks;
`
`in response to a determination the first luma VPDU is not split into smaller blocks
`
`and a determination the corresponding second chroma VPDU is split into smaller
`
`blocks, predicting a block of chroma samples of the corresponding second_chroma
`
`VPDU_without using luma samples;
`
`in response to a determination the first luma VPDU is split into smaller blocks
`
`and the determination the corresponding second chroma VPDU is split into smaller
`
`blocks, predicting the block of chroma samples of the corresponding second chroma
`
`VPDU using luma samples; and
`
`in response to the determination the first luma VPDU is not split into smaller
`
`blocks and a determination the corresponding second chroma VPDU is notsplit into
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/906,993
`Art Unit: 2487
`
`Page 19
`
`smaller blocks, predicting the block of chroma samples of the corresponding_second
`
`chroma_VPDU using luma samples.
`
`Chuang teaches of determining whether a first luma virtual pipeline decoding unit
`
`(VPDU) is split into smaller blocks and whether a corresponding second chroma VPDU
`
`is split into smaller blocks [Paragraphs [0060]-[0061] & [0066]-[0069], supported in
`
`62/768,205, Determining if luma CU and chroma CU of VPDU asfirst luma VPDU
`
`and second chroma VPDU, respectively, are split using syntax flags
`
`luma_split_end and chroma_split_end being 0 or 1];
`
`in response to a determination the first luma VPDU is not split into smaller blocks
`
`and a determination the corresponding second chroma VPDU is split into smaller
`
`blocks, predicting a block of chroma samples of the corresponding second_chroma
`
`VPDU_without using luma samples [Paragraphs [0057]-[0069], supported in pg. 11 &
`
`15-16 of 62/768,205, LM mode is disabled if syntax flags luma_split_end and
`
`chroma_split_end are 1 and 0, respectively, wherein when chroma_split_end is
`
`false and the luma CU stopssplit, chroma CU can befurther split into second
`
`chroma VPDUsthatarefurther split, (e.g. the chroma_split_end being all false)];
`
`in response to a determination the first luma VPDU is split into smaller blocks
`
`and the determi