Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-02-14)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness, Double Patenting

CLAIMS:
CLAIMS What is claimed is:
1\. A method of processing video data, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule; and performing the conversion between the current video block and the bitstream, wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream, and wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication inferred to false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block.
2\. The method of claim 1, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure.
3\. The method of claim 1, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the current video block.
4\. The method of claim 1, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a color format of the current video block.
5\. The method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is a second prediction mode, and wherein in the second prediction mode prediction samples are derived from reconstructed sample values of the same picture containing the current video block.
6\. The method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is an inter prediction mode.
7\. The method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is a skip mode.
8\. The method of claim 1, wherein in response to a video slice including the current video block is an I-slice, only one of the first prediction mode, the second prediction mode, and an intra coding mode is used to generate prediction samples of the current video block.
9\. The method of claim 8, wherein the first prediction mode is independent of the intra coding mode.
10\. The method of claim 1, wherein the first indication is presented in the bitstream before a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode, and wherein in response to the first indication being true, the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream.
11\. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream.
12\. The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream.
13\. An apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule; and perform the conversion between the current video block and the bitstream, wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream, and wherein the rule specific that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication inferred to false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block.
14\. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the current video block, and wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a color format of the current video block.
15\. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein in response to a video slice including the current video block is an I-slice, only one of the first prediction mode, the second prediction mode and an intra coding mode is used to generate prediction samples of the current video block.
16\. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the first indication is presented in the bitstream before a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode, and wherein in response to the first indication being true, the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream.
17\. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to: determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule; and perform the conversion between the current video block and the bitstream, wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream, and wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication inferred to false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block.
18\. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the current video block, and wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a color format of the current video block.
19\. A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a bitstream of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises: determining, for a current video block of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule; and generating the bitstream based on the determination, wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream, and wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication inferred to false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block.
20\. The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium of claim 19, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the current video block, and wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a color format of the current video block.

OFFICE 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 .
Remarks
The Examiner would like to note that the method steps of claim 19 do not have to be given weight because there is no functional relationship between the medium and the video processing apparatus or computer (see MPEP 2111.05(III) titled MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA). The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium serves as a support for the data (i.e. the bitstream) which is not used by the computer for any other purpose. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has still included citations below. The Examiner recommended changing the preamble to “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to”.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:  on the third line from the bottom, “wherein the rule specific” should be “wherein the rule specifies”.  Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,677,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the current application is anticipated claim 1 of the U.S. Patent.
The same argument can be made for claims 13, 17 and 19 of the current application when compared to claims 10, 15 and 20 of the U.S. Patent. Dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, 18 and 20 are also rejected as a result of being dependent on claims 1, 13, 17 and 19.
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 11-13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz et al. (U.S. 2015/0373325), hereinafter Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci et al. (U.S. 2015/0312573), hereinafter Bugdayci.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Karczewicz discloses an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor (Karczewicz [0082]), cause the processor to:
determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule (Karczewicz [0020]); and
perform the conversion between the current video block and the bitstream (Karczewicz [0020]);
wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream (Karczewicz [0026]).
Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication inferred to false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block.
However, Bugdayci teaches wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication inferred to false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block (Bugdayci [0091] and [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karczewicz’s apparatus with the missing limitations as taught by Bugdayci to increase video coding efficiency as a result of transmitting the video in a more compact form to achieve a lower required bitrate (Bugdayci [0003]).
Regarding claim 6, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is an inter prediction mode (Karczewicz [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is a skip mode (Karczewicz [0044]).
Regarding claim 11, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (Karczewicz [0020]).
Regarding claim 12, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (Karczewicz [0021]).
Regarding claim 17, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to (Karczewicz [0082]): determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule; and perform the conversion between the current video block and the bitstream; wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream, and wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication inferred to false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block (see claim 1 citations).
Regarding claim 19, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Karczewicz [0082]) storing a bitstream (Karczewicz [0083] and [0132]) of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule; and generating the bitstream based on the determination; wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream, and wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication inferred to false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block (see claim 1 citations and remarks above).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (U.S. 2020/0092546), hereinafter Ye.
Regarding claim 2, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci teaches the method of claim 1. Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure.
However, Ye teaches, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure (Ye [0209]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci with the missing limitations as taught by Ye to achieve significant gains in coding efficiency (Ye [0003]).
Claims 3-4, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci as applied to claims 1, 13, 17 and 19 above, and further in view of Rapaka et al. (U.S. 2016/0227226), hereinafter Rapaka.
Regarding claim 3, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci teaches the method of claim 1. Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the current video block.
However, Rapaka teaches, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the current video block (Rapaka [0074]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci with the missing limitations as taught by Rapaka to transmit, receive, encode, decode and/or store digital video information more efficiently (Rapaka [0003]).
Regarding claim 4, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci and Rapaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a color format of the current video block (Rapaka [0074]-[0075]).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 3 applies to claim 4.
Regarding claims 14, 18 and 20, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci and Rapaka teaches the apparatus of claims 13, 17 and 19, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the current video block, and wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a color format of the current video block (see citations and analysis for claims 2-4, 13, 17 and 19).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 3 applies to claims 14, 18 and 20.
Claims 5, 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. 2012/0257678), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 5, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is a second prediction mode (Karczewicz [0044] and [0090]). Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein in the second prediction mode prediction samples are derived from reconstructed sample values of the same picture containing the current video block.
However, Zhou teaches, wherein the non-intra mode is a second prediction mode, and wherein in the second prediction mode prediction samples are derived from reconstructed sample values of the same picture containing the current video block (Zhou [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci with the missing limitations as taught by Zhou to reduce coding overhead (Zhou [0007]).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci and Zhou teaches the method and apparatus of claims 1 and 13, wherein in response to a video slice including the current video block is a I-slice, only one of the first prediction mode, the second prediction mode, and an intra coding mode is used to generate prediction samples of the current video block (Karczewicz [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci and Zhou teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first prediction mode is independent of the intra coding mode (Karczewicz [0070]).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Joshi et al. (“High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Screen Content Coding: Draft 6”, JCTVC-W1005-v4, 19-26 February 2016), hereinafter Joshi. Joshi was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 3/29/23. The copy used for citations below by the Examiner has been included as NPL.
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci teaches the method and apparatus of claims 1 and 13. Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein the first indication is presented in the bitstream before a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode, and wherein in response to the first indication being true, the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream.
However, Joshi teaches, wherein the first indication is presented in the bitstream before a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode, and wherein in response to the first indication being true, the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream (Joshi p. 52, section 7.3.8.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci with the missing limitations as taught by Joshi to increase coding efficiency (Joshi p. 52 and xxii, section 0.2).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of increasing coding efficiency.
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS/ARGUMENTS Status of Claims Claims 1, 3, and 5-20 stand rejected. Claims 1, 8, 10, and 13-20 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 4 are hereby cancelled. Claims 21-22 have been added. Thus, claims 1, 3, and 5-22 are pending in this patent application. The Applicants hereby request further examination and reconsideration of the presently claimed application. Double Patenting Rejections Claim 1, 13, 17 and 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 10, 15 and 20 ofU.S. Patent No. 11,677,953. The Applicants respectfully decline to provide a Terminal Disclaimer at this time. However, the Applicants will revisit this issue and consider filing a Terminal Disclaimer upon allowance of all pending claims. Claim Objections Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: on the third line from the bottom, "wherein the rule specific" should be "wherein the rule specifies." The Applicant has thus amended claim 13. Therefore, the claim objection should be withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 1, 6-7, 11-13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2015/0373325 Al (Karczewicz) in view of U.S. Publication No 2015/0312573 Al (Bugdayci). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci and U.S. Publication No. 2020/0092546 Al (Ye). Claims 3-4, 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci and U.S. Publication No. 2016/0227226 Al (Rapaka). Claims 5, 8-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci and U.S. Publication No. 2012/0257678 Al (Zhou). Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci and "High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Screen Content Coding: Draft 6"), JCTVC-W1005-v4 (Joshi). Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled. Claims 3 and 5-13 depend from independent claim 1, claims 14-16 depend from independent claim 13, claim 18 depends from claim 17, and claim 20 depends from claim 19. Thus, claims 1, 3, and 5-20 are allowable over the combination of Karczewicz and Bugdayci if independent claims 1, 13, 17, and 19 are allowable over the combination of Karczewicz and Bugdayci. The United States Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City noted that an obviousness determination begins with a finding that "the prior art as a whole in one form or another contains all" of the elements of the claimed invention. See Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 22 (U.S. 1966). The Applicants respectfully assert that the cited prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations set forth in claims , 13, 17, and 19, and consequently does not render obvious claims 1, 3, and 5-20. The combination of Karczewicz and Bugdayci fails to render obvious claims 1, 3, and 5-20 because the combination of Karczewicz and Bugdayci fails to disclose (A) that the rule further specifies whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a color format of the current video block, and (B) that in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream. Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of dependent claims 2 and 4, and a portion of the subject matter of dependent claim 10. As amended, claim 1 now reads: 1. A method of processing video data, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule; and performing the conversion between the current video block and the bitstream, wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream, wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication is inferred to be false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes at least one of a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a color format of the current video block, and wherein in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream. (emphasis added). As shown above, claim 1 requires (A) that the rule further specifies whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a color format of the current video block, and (B) that in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream. On page 8 of the Office Action, in rejecting dependent claim 4, the Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Karczewicz and Bugdayci fails to disclose that the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a color format of the current video block, but asserts that Rapaka remedies this deficiency. However, Rapaka discloses that the value of pred palette flag may be inferred from, for example, one or more of the size of the CU being coded, the frame type, the color space, the color component, the frame size, the frame rate, the layer id in scalable video coding or the view id in multi-view coding: According to some aspects of this disclosure, certain information associated with palette prediction may be inferred from one or more characteristics of the data being coded. That is, rather than video encoder 20 encoding syntax elements (and video decoder 30 decoding such syntax elements), video encoder 20 and video decoder 30 may perform palette prediction based on one or more characteristics ofthe data being coded. In an example, for purposes of illustration, the value of pred palette flag, described above, may be inferred from one or more of, as examples, the size of the CU being coded, the frame type, the color space, the color component, the frame size, the frame rate, the layer id in scalable video coding or the view id in multi-view coding. ThatSVG {EMBED HERE} 0.692.277 U as a SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.6971.593 r 20 and/or video above- lag is equal to one s than this example, the be sig ream. Rapaka, 74-75 (emphasis added). As shown above, Rapaka discloses that the value of pred palette flag may be inferred from, for example, one or more ofthe size ofthe CU being coded, the frame type, the color space, the color component, the frame size, the frame rate, the layer id in scalable video coding or the view id in multi-view coding. However, Rapaka fails to disclose that whether to include a first indication in a bitstream is based on a color format of the current video block as recited in Applicant's independent claims. Moreover, the above factors in Rapaka only include a color component, but fail to include a color format. The Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skills in the art would understand that a color component is not the same as a color format (e.g., N-bit RGB, 4:4:4/4:2:0/4:0:0 subsampling formats). Thus, there is no teaching or suggestion in Rapaka corresponding to limitation (A) that the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a color format of the current video block" as recited in the Applicant's independent claims. On page 10 ofthe Office Action, in rejecting dependent claim 10, the Examiner acknowledges that the combination of Karczewicz and Bugdayci fails to disclose that in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream, but asserts that Joshi remedies this deficiency. However, Joshi discloses that palette_mode_flag[ x0 ][ y0 ] equal to 1 specifies that the current coding unit is coded using the palette mode, but fails to disclose that pcm flag[ x0 1[ v0 1 is not present when palette mode flagl x0 1[ v0 1 equal to 1: SVG {EMBED HERE} 2.3574.64SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.6436.047When SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1131.45 is-not-present,-it-is-inferred-to-be-equal-to-0. SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.0530.05SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.561.013 -equal-to-1 specifies that the-pcm sanple(9 syntax-structure-is-present-and-the tranSVG {EMBED HERE} 0.3970.667n SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.090.267 not- present- in- the- coding- unit- including- the- luma- coding- block- at- the- locati equal-to-0-specifies-that-pc le(T~syntax-structure-is-not-present.-w'hen-pcm flag red-to-be-equal-to-0.| Joshi, page 52, section 7.3.8.5 (emphasis added). As shown above, Joshi discloses that a palette_mode_flag[ x0 ][ y0] equal to 1 specifies that the current coding unit is coded using the palette mode, but fails to disclose that pcm flagr x0 i v0 is not present when palettemodeflagr x0][ y0] equal to 1. Thus, there is no teaching or suggestion in Joshi corresponding to the limitation (B) that in response to the first indication being true, the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream as recited in the Applicant's independent claims. None of the other cited references make up for the shortcomings noted above. Therefore, the combination of Karczewicz, Bugdayci, Rapaka, Ye, Zhou and/or Joshi fails to disclose at least one element of independent claims 1, 13, 17, and 19, and consequently fails to render obvious 1, 3, and 5-20. New Claims New claims 21-22 recites novel and non-obvious aspects of the disclosure. Support for the new claims can be found throughout the Applicant's originally filed application, including paragraph 224. Thus, no new matter is contained in these claims. Claims 21 and 22 depend from independent claims 1 and 17, respectively, which are allowable for the reasons stated above. Thus, claims 21-22 are also allowable. CONCLUSION Consideration of the foregoing amendments and remarks, reconsideration of the application, and withdrawal of the rejections and objections is respectfully requested by the Applicants. No new matter is introduced by way of the amendment. It is believed that each ground of rejection raised in the Office Action dated February 14, 2024 has been fully addressed. If any fee is due as a result of the filing of this paper, please appropriately charge such fee to Deposit Account Number 50-1515 of Conley Rose, P.C., Texas. If a petition for extension of time is necessary in order for this paper to be deemed timely filed, please consider this a petition therefor. If a telephone conference would facilitate the resolution of any issue or expedite the prosecution of the application, the Examiner is invited to telephone the undersigned at the telephone number given below. Respectfully submitted, CONLEY ROSE, P.C. Date: May 14, 2024 /William H. Dietrich/ William H. Dietrich Reg. No. 48,359 4965 Preston Park Boulevard, Suite 195E ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANTS Plano, TX 75093 (972) 731-2288 (972) 731-2289 (Facsimile)

NEXT OFFICE 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 .
Remarks
The Examiner would like to note that the method steps of claim 19 do not have to be given weight because there is no functional relationship between the medium and the video processing apparatus or computer (see MPEP 2111.05(III) titled MACHINE-READABLE MEDIA). The non-transitory computer-readable recording medium serves as a support for the data (i.e. the bitstream) which is not used by the computer for any other purpose. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has still included citations below. The Examiner recommended changing the preamble to “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to”.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,677,953. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the current application is anticipated claim 1 of the U.S. Patent.
The same argument can be made for claims 13, 17 and 19 of the current application when compared to claims 10, 15 and 20 of the U.S. Patent. Dependent claims 3, 5-12, 14-16, 18 and 20-22 are also rejected as a result of being dependent on claims 1, 13, 17 and 19.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10-14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz et al. (U.S. 2015/0373325), hereinafter Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci et al. (U.S. 2015/0312573), hereinafter Bugdayci, Ye et al. (U.S. 2020/0092546), hereinafter Ye, Rapaka et al. (U.S. 2016/0227226), hereinafter Rapaka and Joshi et al. (“High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Screen Content Coding: Draft 6”, JCTVC-W1005-v4, 19-26 February 2016), hereinafter Joshi. Joshi was cited in the Applicant’s IDS dated 3/29/23. The copy used for citations below by the Examiner was attached as NPL to the Non-Final Rejection dated 2/14/24.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Karczewicz discloses an apparatus for processing video data comprising a processor and a non-transitory memory with instructions thereon, wherein the instructions upon execution by the processor (Karczewicz [0082]), cause the processor to:
determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule (Karczewicz [0020]); and
perform the conversion between the current video block and the bitstream (Karczewicz [0020]);
wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream (Karczewicz [0026]).
Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication is inferred to be false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block.
However, Bugdayci teaches wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication is inferred to be false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block (Bugdayci [0091] and [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Karczewicz’s apparatus with the missing limitations as taught by Bugdayci to increase video coding efficiency as a result of transmitting the video in a more compact form to achieve a lower required bitrate (Bugdayci [0003]).
Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure.
However, Ye teaches, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure (Ye [0209]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci with the missing limitations as taught by Ye to achieve significant gains in coding efficiency (Ye [0003]).
Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a color format of the current video block.
However, Rapaka teaches wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a color format of the current video block (Rapaka [0074]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci and Ye with the missing limitations as taught by Rapaka to transmit, receive, encode, decode and/or store digital video information more efficiently (Rapaka [0003]).
Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein in response to the first indication being true, the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream.
However, Joshi teaches wherein in response to the first indication being true, the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream (Joshi p. 52, section 7.3.8.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye and Rapaka with the missing limitations as taught by Joshi to increase coding efficiency (Joshi p. 52 and xxii, section 0.2).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of increasing coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches the method of claim 1. Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the current video block.
However, Rapaka further teaches, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the current video block (Rapaka [0074]-[0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci with the missing limitations as taught by Rapaka to transmit, receive, encode, decode and/or store digital video information more efficiently (Rapaka [0003]).
Regarding claim 6, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is an inter prediction mode (Karczewicz [0027]).
Regarding claim 7, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is a skip mode (Karczewicz [0044]).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches the method and apparatus of claims 1 and 13. Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein the first indication is presented in the bitstream before the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode.
However, Joshi further teaches, wherein the first indication is presented in the bitstream before the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode (Joshi p. 52, section 7.3.8.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci with the missing limitations as taught by Joshi to increase coding efficiency (Joshi p. 52 and xxii, section 0.2).
As shown above, all of the limitations are known, they can be applied to a known device such as a processor to yield a predictable result of increasing coding efficiency.
Regarding claim 11, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current video block into the bitstream (Karczewicz [0020]).
Regarding claim 12, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the current video block from the bitstream (Karczewicz [0021]).
Regarding claims 14, 18 and 20, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches the apparatus of claims 13, 17 and 19, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the current video block (see citations and analysis for claims 3, 13, 17 and 19).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 3 applies to claims 14, 18 and 20.
Regarding claim 17, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to (Karczewicz [0082]): determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule; and perform the conversion between the current video block and the bitstream; wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream, wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication is inferred to be false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block ,wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes at least one of a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a color format of the current video block, and wherein in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream (see claim 1 citations).
Regarding claim 19, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Karczewicz [0082]) storing a bitstream (Karczewicz [0083] and [0132]) of a video which is generated by a method performed by a video processing apparatus, wherein the method comprises: determining, for a conversion between a current video block of a video and a bitstream of the video, whether a first indication of usage of a first prediction mode is included in the bitstream according to a rule; and generating the bitstream based on the determination; wherein in the first prediction mode, reconstructed samples are represented by a set of representative color values, and the set of representative color values comprises at least one of 1) palette predictors, 2) escaped samples, or 3) palette information included in the bitstream, wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream, and the first indication is inferred to be false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the current video block, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a coding tree structure of the current video block, and wherein the coding tree structure includes at least one of a single coding tree structure and a dual coding tree structure, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a color format of the current video block, and wherein in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream (see claim 1 citations and remarks above).
Regarding claim 21, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a first flag in a sequence level (Karczewicz [0044], Table 1 and Rapaka [0101]).
The same motivation and analysis for claim 1 applies to claim 21.
Claims 5, 8-9, 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. 2012/0257678), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claims 5 and 22, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi teaches the method and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claims 1 and 17, respectively, wherein the non-intra mode is a second prediction mode (Karczewicz [0044] and [0090]). Karczewicz does not explicitly disclose wherein in the second prediction mode prediction samples are derived from reconstructed sample values of the same picture containing the current video block.
However, Zhou teaches, wherein the non-intra mode is a second prediction mode, and wherein in the second prediction mode prediction samples are derived from reconstructed sample values of the same picture containing the current video block (Zhou [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka and Joshi with the missing limitations as taught by Zhou to reduce coding overhead (Zhou [0007]).
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka, Joshi and Zhou teaches the method and apparatus of claims 1 and 13, wherein in response to a video slice including the current video block is a I-slice, only one of the first prediction mode, a second prediction mode, and an intra coding mode is used to generate prediction samples of the current video block (Karczewicz [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, Karczewicz in view of Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka, Joshi and Zhou teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the first prediction mode is independent of the intra coding mode (Karczewicz [0070]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/24 in regards to the previously presented portions of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pgs. 12-13 of the Applicant’s Response, the Applicant argues that Rapaka does not teach the amended color format limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Webster’s Online Dictionary defines a format as a method of organizing data or a shape, size or general makeup. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the current claim language “color format”, Rapaka teaches a palette mode indication based on multiple characteristics which can be interpreted as a “color format” (Rapaka [0074]-[0075]). Therefore, Rapaka teaches the amended color format limitation of claim 1.
On pgs. 13-15 of the Applicant’s Response, the Applicant argues that Joshi does not teach the amended pulse code modulation limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Joshi teaches a pulse code modulation (pcm) indication in the else portion of the palette mode syntax (Joshi p. 52, i.e. if the first indication for palette mode is true, then the pcm indication is not included). Therefore, Joshi teaches the amended color format limitation of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xiu et al. (WO 2016/115343) teaches a palette mode based on color format ([0038]). Xiu was cited on the Applicant’s IDS dated 3/29/23. A copy was provided on 6/30/22 in the parent application #17/330,792.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.  Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.  See MPEP § 706.07(a).  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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20150373325A1: [content unavailable]
Ref US20150312573A1: [content unavailable]
Ref US20200092546A1: Claims:
A method for decoding a video sequence of a coded video stream, performed by at least one processor, using at least one color palette in a palette mode, each of the at least one color palette including at least one luma value or at least one chroma value, the method comprising: determining whether a current tree structure is a dual tree structure where a luma color plane has a split tree structure that is different from a split tree structure of a chroma color plane; and decoding at least one image of the video sequence using one or more color palettes of the at least one color palette based on the determining whether the current tree structure is the dual tree structure.
determining whether a current tree structure is a dual tree structure where a luma color plane has a split tree structure that is different from a split tree structure of a chroma color plane; and
decoding at least one image of the video sequence using one or more color palettes of the at least one color palette based on the determining whether the current tree structure is the dual tree structure.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: updating a palette predictor list, the updating comprising: providing, in a case where the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, a first luma value of a first palette of the at least one color palette to the palette predictor list and ignoring all chroma values of the first palette, such that no chroma value of the first palette is provided to the palette predictor list, wherein the decoding the at least one image comprises decoding the at least one image of the video sequence by predicting a second palette of the at least one color palette using the palette predictor list.
updating a palette predictor list, the updating comprising: providing, in a case where the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, a first luma value of a first palette of the at least one color palette to the palette predictor list and ignoring all chroma values of the first palette, such that no chroma value of the first palette is provided to the palette predictor list, wherein
providing, in a case where the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, a first luma value of a first palette of the at least one color palette to the palette predictor list and ignoring all chroma values of the first palette, such that no chroma value of the first palette is provided to the palette predictor list, wherein
the decoding the at least one image comprises decoding the at least one image of the video sequence by predicting a second palette of the at least one color palette using the palette predictor list.
The method of claim 2 , further comprising: receiving a palette predictor initializer; initializing, in the case where the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, the palette predictor list with a luma value signaled by palette predictor initializer; and setting, in the case where the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, a chroma value of the palette predictor list with a predefined value, without the palette predictor initializer signaling any chroma value to the palette predictor list.
receiving a palette predictor initializer;
initializing, in the case where the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, the palette predictor list with a luma value signaled by palette predictor initializer; and
setting, in the case where the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, a chroma value of the palette predictor list with a predefined value, without the palette predictor initializer signaling any chroma value to the palette predictor list.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: receiving, in a case where the luma color plane is to be decoded while the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, a signal indicating a luma value of an escape pixel without receiving any signal indicating a chroma value of the escape pixel to be used in the palette mode, wherein the decoding the at least one image comprises using the luma value of the escape pixel in the palette mode.
receiving, in a case where the luma color plane is to be decoded while the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, a signal indicating a luma value of an escape pixel without receiving any signal indicating a chroma value of the escape pixel to be used in the palette mode, wherein
the decoding the at least one image comprises using the luma value of the escape pixel in the palette mode.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: receiving, in a case where the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, a signal indicating whether a current chroma block is to be decoded using the palette mode; and determining whether the current chroma block is to be decoded using the palette mode based on the signal, wherein the decoding the at least one image comprises decoding the current chroma block using a palette of the at least one color palette in the case where the signal indicates the current chroma block is to be decoded using the palette mode.
receiving, in a case where the current tree structure is determined to be the dual tree structure, a signal indicating whether a current chroma block is to be decoded using the palette mode; and
determining whether the current chroma block is to be decoded using the palette mode based on the signal, wherein
the decoding the at least one image comprises decoding the current chroma block using a palette of the at least one color palette in the case where the signal indicates the current chroma block is to be decoded using the palette mode.
The method of claim 5 , wherein the signal indicating whether the current chroma block is to be decoded using the palette mode is received based on at least one of co-located luma blocks being in the palette mode.
the signal indicating whether the current chroma block is to be decoded using the palette mode is received based on at least one of co-located luma blocks being in the palette mode.
The method of claim 1 , further comprising: determining whether at least one luma block, co-located to a current chroma block, is using the palette mode; determining whether a current chroma block is to be using the palette mode based on the determining whether the at least one luma block is using the palette mode, wherein the decoding the at least one image comprises decoding the current chroma block using a palette of the at least one color palette in the case where the current chroma block is to be decoded using the palette mode.
determining whether at least one luma block, co-located to a current chroma block, is using the palette mode;
determining whether a current chroma block is to be using the palette mode based on the determining whether the at least one luma block is using the palette mode, wherein
the decoding the at least one image comprises decoding the current chroma block using a palette of the at least one color palette in the case where the current chroma block is to be decoded using the palette mode.
The method of claim 7 , wherein the at least one luma block is a plurality of luma blocks co-located to the current chroma block, and the current chroma block is determined to be using the palette mode based on all of the plurality of luma blocks being determined to be using the palette mode.
the at least one luma block is a plurality of luma blocks co-located to the current chroma block, and
the current chroma block is determined to be using the palette mode based on all of the plurality of luma blocks being determined to be using the palette mode.
The method of claim 7 , wherein the at least one luma block is a plurality of luma blocks co-located to the current chroma block, and the current chroma block is determined to be using the palette mode based on a number of the plurality of luma blocks, greater than a predetermined threshold, being determined to be using the palette mode.
the current chroma block is determined to be using the palette mode based on a number of the plurality of luma blocks, greater than a predetermined threshold, being determined to be using the palette mode.
The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one image decoded is a part of a video with three color components, the at least one color palette comprises a respective color palette table for each of the three color components, and the method further comprises predicting the respective color palettes tables for each of the three color components using a respective palette predictor list for each of the three color components.
the at least one image decoded is a part of a video with three color components,
the at least one color palette comprises a respective color palette table for each of the three color components, and
the method further comprises predicting the respective color palettes tables for each of the three color components using a respective palette predictor list for each of the three color components.
A method for decoding a video sequence of a coded video stream, performed by at least one processor, using at least one color palette in a palette mode, the method comprising: generating a first palette predictor list, the generating comprising: determining whether at least one neighboring block of a current block is in the palette mode; and inserting at least one palette entry from a neighboring block of the at least one neighboring block into the first palette predictor list, based on the neighboring block being determined to be in palette mode; generating a second palette predictor list of the current block; generating a combined palette predictor list by combining at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list with at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list; decoding the current block of the video sequence using the combined palette predictor list, the decoding including predicting a palette of the at least one color palette using the combined palette predictor list.
generating a first palette predictor list, the generating comprising: determining whether at least one neighboring block of a current block is in the palette mode; and inserting at least one palette entry from a neighboring block of the at least one neighboring block into the first palette predictor list, based on the neighboring block being determined to be in palette mode;
determining whether at least one neighboring block of a current block is in the palette mode; and
inserting at least one palette entry from a neighboring block of the at least one neighboring block into the first palette predictor list, based on the neighboring block being determined to be in palette mode;
generating a second palette predictor list of the current block;
generating a combined palette predictor list by combining at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list with at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list;
decoding the current block of the video sequence using the combined palette predictor list, the decoding including predicting a palette of the at least one color palette using the combined palette predictor list.
The method of claim 11 , wherein the inserting the at least one palette entry from the neighboring block includes inserting, into the first palette predictor list, a palette entry from each of the plurality of neighboring blocks that is determined to be in the palette mode.
the inserting the at least one palette entry from the neighboring block includes inserting, into the first palette predictor list, a palette entry from each of the plurality of neighboring blocks that is determined to be in the palette mode.
The method of claim 11 , wherein the at least one neighboring block of the current block includes adjacent neighboring blocks, the adjacent neighboring blocks include: a first neighboring block that has a bottom-right corner that is located directly adjacent to a bottom-left corner of the current block, a second neighboring block that has a bottom-right corner that is located directly adjacent to a top-right corner of the current block, a third neighboring block that has a bottom-left corner that is located directly adjacent to the top-right corner of the current block, a fourth neighboring block that has a top-right corner that is located directly adjacent to the bottom-left corner of the current block, and a fifth neighboring block that has a bottom-right corner that is located directly adjacent to a top-left corner of the current block.
the at least one neighboring block of the current block includes adjacent neighboring blocks, the adjacent neighboring blocks include: a first neighboring block that has a bottom-right corner that is located directly adjacent to a bottom-left corner of the current block, a second neighboring block that has a bottom-right corner that is located directly adjacent to a top-right corner of the current block, a third neighboring block that has a bottom-left corner that is located directly adjacent to the top-right corner of the current block, a fourth neighboring block that has a top-right corner that is located directly adjacent to the bottom-left corner of the current block, and a fifth neighboring block that has a bottom-right corner that is located directly adjacent to a top-left corner of the current block.
a first neighboring block that has a bottom-right corner that is located directly adjacent to a bottom-left corner of the current block,
a second neighboring block that has a bottom-right corner that is located directly adjacent to a top-right corner of the current block,
a third neighboring block that has a bottom-left corner that is located directly adjacent to the top-right corner of the current block,
a fourth neighboring block that has a top-right corner that is located directly adjacent to the bottom-left corner of the current block, and
a fifth neighboring block that has a bottom-right corner that is located directly adjacent to a top-left corner of the current block.
The method of claim 13 , wherein the at least one neighboring block of the current block further includes a plurality of distanced blocks, each of the plurality of distanced blocks having a position corresponding to a position of a respective one of the adjacent neighboring blocks, at a respective offset distance away from the respective one of the adjacent neighboring blocks such that the plurality of distanced blocks are distanced from the current block.
The method of claim 14 , wherein the determining whether the at least one neighboring block of the current block is in the palette mode comprises: determining whether each of the adjacent neighboring blocks are in the palette mode; and determining, whether each of the plurality of distanced blocks are in the palette mode, after determining whether each of the adjacent neighboring blocks are in the palette mode.
the determining whether the at least one neighboring block of the current block is in the palette mode comprises: determining whether each of the adjacent neighboring blocks are in the palette mode; and determining, whether each of the plurality of distanced blocks are in the palette mode, after determining whether each of the adjacent neighboring blocks are in the palette mode.
determining whether each of the adjacent neighboring blocks are in the palette mode; and
determining, whether each of the plurality of distanced blocks are in the palette mode, after determining whether each of the adjacent neighboring blocks are in the palette mode.
The method of claim 11 , wherein the generating the combined palette predictor list comprises: inserting the at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list; and inserting one or more of the at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list, after the inserting the at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list, until the combined palette predictor list reaches a predefined or signaled size limit.
the generating the combined palette predictor list comprises: inserting the at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list; and inserting one or more of the at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list, after the inserting the at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list, until the combined palette predictor list reaches a predefined or signaled size limit.
inserting the at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list; and
inserting one or more of the at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list, after the inserting the at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list, until the combined palette predictor list reaches a predefined or signaled size limit.
The method of claim 11 , wherein the generating the combined palette predictor list comprises: inserting the at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list; and inserting one or more of the at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list, after the inserting the at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list, until the combined palette predictor list reaches a predefined or signaled size limit.
the generating the combined palette predictor list comprises: inserting the at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list; and inserting one or more of the at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list, after the inserting the at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list, until the combined palette predictor list reaches a predefined or signaled size limit.
inserting the at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list; and
inserting one or more of the at least one palette entry of the first palette predictor list into the combined palette predictor list, after the inserting the at least one palette entry of the second palette predictor list, until the combined palette predictor list reaches a predefined or signaled size limit.
The method of claim 11 , wherein the generating the first palette predictor list further comprises determining whether a difference between a color of the at least one palette entry of the neighboring block and a color of a palette entry already provided in the first palette predictor list is larger than a predetermined threshold, and the at least one palette entry from the neighboring block is inserted into the first palette predictor list based on the neighboring block being determined to be in palette mode and the difference between the color of the at least one palette entry and the color of the palette entry already provided in the first palette predictor list being determined to be larger than the predetermined threshold.
the generating the first palette predictor list further comprises determining whether a difference between a color of the at least one palette entry of the neighboring block and a color of a palette entry already provided in the first palette predictor list is larger than a predetermined threshold, and
the at least one palette entry from the neighboring block is inserted into the first palette predictor list based on the neighboring block being determined to be in palette mode and the difference between the color of the
[Truncated to input limit]