Office Action 3: Notice of Allowance (2024-12-05)

CLAIMS:
Listing of claims:

AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS

1\. (Currently Amended) A method of processing video data, comprising:
determining, for a conversion between a first 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 first 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 ofrepresentative 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 inferred to be false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the firstvideo 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 first 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 first video block, wherein in case that the first video block has a first size and a first color format, the first indication is conditionally included in the bitstream for the first video block when the first video block has a first coding tree structure, and is not included in the bitstream for the first video block when the first video block has a second coding tree structure different from the coding tree structure,
wherein in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code

modulation mode is not included in the bitstream and wherein the rule further specifies that when the first prediction mode is applied to the first video block, motion information of the first video block is treated as unavailable for constructing a motion candidate list of a second video block in response to the second video block being coded in a second prediction mode that is different than the first prediction mode, and wherein the first video block is one of a plurality of neighboring blocks of the second video block.
2\. (Cancelled)
3\. (Currently Amended) 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 first video block.
4\. (Cancelled)
5\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is a third prediction mode, and wherein in the third prediction mode prediction samples are derived from reconstructed sample values of the same picture containing the first video block.
6\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is an inter prediction mode.
7\. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein the non-intra mode is a skip mode.

8\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein in response to a video slice including the first video block is an I-slice, only one of the first prediction mode, a third prediction mode, and an intra coding mode is used to generate prediction samples of the first video block.
9\. (Original) The method of claim 8, wherein the first prediction mode is independent of the intra coding mode.

10\. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 1, wherein the first indication is presented in the bitstream before the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode.

11\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the first video block into the bitstream.

12\. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the first video block from the bitstream.

13\. (Currently Amended) 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 first 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 first 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 inferred to be false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the firstvideo 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 first 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 first video block, wherein in case that the first video block has a first size and a first color format, the first indication is conditionally included in the bitstream for the first video block when the first video block has a first coding tree structure, and is not included in the bitstream for the first video block when the first video block has a second coding tree structure different from the coding tree structure,
wherein in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream and wherein the rule further specifies that when the first prediction mode is applied to the first video block, motion information of the first video block is treated as unavailable for constructing a motion candidate list of a second video block in response to the second video block being coded in a second prediction mode that is different than the first prediction mode, wherein the first video block is one of a plurality of neighboring blocks of the second video block.

14\. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the rule further specifies that whether to include the first indication in the bitstream based on a dimension of the firstvideo block.

15\. (Currently Amended) The apparatus of claim 13, wherein in response to a video slice including the first video block is an I-slice, only one of the first prediction mode, a third prediction mode and an intra coding mode is used to generate prediction samples of the first video block.

16\. (Previously Presented) The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the first indication is presented in the bitstream before the usage indication of the pulse code modulation mode.

17\. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that cause a processor to:determine, for a conversion between a first 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 first 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 inferred to be false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the

first 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 firstvideo 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 first video block, wherein in case that the first video block has a first size and a first color format, the first indication is conditionally included in the bitstream for the first video block when the first video block has a first coding tree structure, and is not included in the bitstream for the first video block when the first video block has a second coding tree structure different from the coding tree structure,
wherein in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream and wherein the rule further specifies that when the first prediction mode is applied to the first video block, motion information of the first video block is treated as unavailable for constructing a motion candidate list of a second video block in response to the second video block being coded in a second prediction mode that is different than the first prediction mode, wherein the first video block is one of a plurality of neighboring blocks of the second video block.

18\. (Cancelled)

19\. (Currently Amended) 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 first 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,
wherein the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream\[\[,\]\] and inferred to be false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the firstvideo 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 first 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 first video block, wherein in case that the first video block has a first size and a first color format, the first indication is conditionally included in the bitstream for the first video block when the first video block has a first coding tree structure, and is not included in the bitstream for the first video block when the first video block has a second coding tree structure different from the coding tree structure,
wherein in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream, and
wherein the rule further specifies that when the first prediction mode is applied to the first video block, motion information of the first video block is treated as unavailable for constructing a motion candidate list of a second video block in response to the second video block being coded in

a second prediction mode that is different than the first prediction mode, wherein the first video block is one of a plurality of neighboring blocks of the second video block.

20\. (Cancelled)

21\. (Previously Presented) 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.

22\. (Cancelled)

23\. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the motion candidate list is a merge candidate list or an advanced motion vector prediction (AMVP) candidate list.

24\. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the second video block is treated as a block with an invalid reference index for the constructing.

25\. (New) The method of claim 1, wherein the second video block is treated as a block with a zero motion vector.

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 .
EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Authorization for this examiner’s amendment was given in an interview with William H. Dietrich (Reg. No. 48,359) on 11/19/24.
The application has been amended as follows:
19.       (Currently Amended) A for storing a bitstream of a video, comprising
determining, for a first 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;
generating the bitstream based on the determination; and [[,]]
storing the bitstream in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium,
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 inferred to be false in response to a non-intra mode being applied for the first 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 first 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 first video block, wherein in case that the first video block has a first size and a first color format, the first indication is conditionally included in the bitstream for the first video block when the first video block has a first coding tree structure, and is not included in the bitstream for the first video block when the first video block has a second coding tree structure different from the coding tree structure,
wherein in response to the first indication being true, a usage indication of a pulse code modulation mode is not included in the bitstream, and
wherein the rule further specifies that when the first prediction mode is applied to the first video block, motion information of the first video block is treated as unavailable for constructing a motion candidate list of a second video block in response to the second video block being coded in a second prediction mode that is different than the first prediction mode, wherein the first video block is one of a plurality of neighboring blocks of the second video block.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: after further consideration of the cited prior art in view of the Applicant’s amendments and arguments in the Remarks filed 09/26/2024 and the Examiner’s Amendment above, the prior art of record does not teach the amended limitations of the independent claims in conjunction with the remaining claim limitations.
The method claims have been interpreted to include all the steps listed. The current application has been significantly amended from the original U.S. application #17/330,792 with corresponding patent # 11,677,953 and as a result, no terminal disclaimer was required for the original U.S. application.
Dependent claims 3, 5-12, 14-16, 21 and 23-25 are also allowed as a result of being dependent on claims 1 and 13.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS/ARGUMENTS Status of Claims Claims 1, 3, and 5-22 stand rejected. Claims 1, 13, 17 and 19 are currently amended. Claims 2 and 4 have been cancelled. No new claims 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. Request under After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 The Applicants respectfully request that the claim amendments be entered pursuant to the After Final Consideration Pilot Program (AFCP) 2.0 because those amendments place the Application in condition for allowance by adding new limitation(s) while only requiring a limited amount of further consideration/search by the Examiner. The Applicants further note an AFCP request form (i.e., Form PTO/SB/434) is filed herewith, and respectfully requests an interview with the Examiner if entry of the amendments is deemed inappropriate under AFCP 2.0. Double Patenting Rejections Claims 1, 3, and 5-22 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,677,953. The Applicants' independent claims have been amended to recite the limitation "the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream for the current block when the current video block has a size of 16," which renders the claims patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,677,953. Thus, the double patenting rejection should be withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. 2015/0373325 Al (Karczewicz) in view of U.S. Pub. 2015/0312573 Al (Bugdayci), U.S. Pub. 2020/0092546 Al (Ye), U.S. Pub. 2016/0227226 Al (Rapaka), and "High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) Screen Content Coding: Draft 6", JCTVC-W1005-v4 (Joshi). 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, Joshi, and U.S. Pub. 2012/0257678 Al (Zhou). Claims 3, 5-12, and 22 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. Therefore, claims 1, 3, 5-12, 14-16, 18 and 20-22 will be allowable over the combination of Karczewicz, Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka, and Joshi if independent claims 1, 13, 17 and 19 are allowable over the combination of Karczewicz, Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka, and Joshi. The United States Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City noted that an obviousness determination begins with a fmding 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 1, 13, 17 and 19, and consequently does not render obvious claims1, 3 and 5-22. The combination of Karczewicz, Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka, and Joshi fails to render obvious claims 1, 3, and 5-22 because the combination of Karczewicz, Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka, and Joshi fails to disclose (A) that the rule further specifies whether to include the first indication in the bitstream is based on a color format ofthe current video block, and (B) the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream for the current block when the current video block has a size of 16. As amended, claim 1 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 the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream for the current block when the current video block has a size of 16. (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) the rule specifies that the first indication is not included in the bitstream for the current block when the current video block has a size of 16. Independent claims 13, 17 and 19 include similar limitations. Support for the amendment is found in at least paragraph 224, bullet 5.a.iii.1, in the Applicants' originally-filed application. On pages 6-8 of the Office Action, 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 coding unit (CU) being coded, the frame type, the color space, the color component, the frame size, the frame rate, the layer identifier (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 flay, 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. That is, with respect to the size of the CU as an example, video encoder 20 and/or videodecoder 30 may determine that the above-described pred_p SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.310.477 lag is equal to onefor any CUs that exceed or are less than a predetermined this example, the pred_p SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1530.433 flag does not need to be signaled in the encoded bitstream. Rapaka, 74-75 (emphasis added). As shown above, Rapaka discloses that the value of pred paletteflag 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. However, Rapaka fails to disclose that whether to include a first indication in a bitstream is based on a color format of the current videoblock as recited in Applicant's independent claims. Whether pred_p SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1530.43 flag is included in thebitstream is not the same as that pred_p SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1530.43 flag being equal to 0 or 1 or other values. Thus,Rapaka does not disclose under what circumstances the bitstream includes or does not include theSVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1530.897 flag. Even assuming the palette mode can be regarded as a color format under the broadest reasonable interpretation, which the Applicants' do not agree with, Rapaka only discloses that the value of the flag of the color format can be derived from the current CU size, frame type, color space, color components, frame size, frame rate, etc. However, that palette mode does not indicate whetheror not the pred_p SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1530.433 flag is included in the bitstream is derived from these characteristics. Thus,Rapaka fails to disclose (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 Applicants' independent claims. In addition, none ofKarczewicz, Bugdayci, Ye, Rapaka, Joshi, and/or Zhou disclose (B) that the first indication is not included in the bitstream for the current block when the current video block has a size of 16 as recited in Applicants' 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 5-22. 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 Final Office Action dated June 26, 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: August 26, 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)