Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remark entered on December 5, 2025.
Claim 1-2, 6, 9-11, 14-17, 26-29, and 32-37 pending in the instant application.
Claims 3-5, 7-8, 12-13, 18-25, 30-31 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/05/2025, page 9 with respect to the objection to the Abstract have been fully considered, and are persuasive. The objection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/05/2025, page 9-12 with respect to the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 2, 9-10 & 26-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first asserts that Deng does not disclose the picture being a reconstructed picture that has been previously encoded or a reference picture.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection below, the cross-component prediction mode is predicted or performed based upon a luma reconstructed sample, as seen in Fig. 21, and thus reads upon a reconstructed picture that has been previously encoded or a reference picture.
The Applicant next asserts that Deng does not disclose selecting the first filter using the classification of the neighboring samples.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Paragraph [0228], Deng discloses of the method 500 may determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video that is a chroma block and a bitstream of the video, utilizing one or more models for a cross-component prediction associated with a cross-component prediction mode, that chooses from a cross-component prediction mode classifying neighbors into one group or a cross-component prediction mode classifying neighbors into N groups. Upon choosing and classifying the neighbors, the method recognizes the neighboring samples that are chosen (and classified) in order for filtering as discussed in Paragraphs [0308]-[0312], wherein, any of the methods above, including method 500, wherein filtering the neighbor samples comprises filtering with a 1-D filter or a 2-D filter, and wherein filtering the neighbor samples comprises filtering luma neighbor samples with a first filter and chroma neighbor samples with a second filter, that are thus using the classification method discussed in paragraph [0228]. Thus Deng discloses selecting the first filter using the classification of the neighboring samples.
The Applicant then asserts in Deng, the filtering of the neighbor samples is done before the classification.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, in Paragraph [0228], Deng discloses of the method 500 may determine, for a conversion between a current video block of a video that is a chroma block and a bitstream of the video, utilizing one or more models for a cross-component prediction associated with a cross-component prediction mode, that chooses from a cross-component prediction mode classifying neighbors into one group or a cross-component prediction mode classifying neighbors into N groups. Upon choosing and classifying the neighbors, the method recognizes the neighboring samples that are chosen (and classified) in order for filtering as discussed in Paragraphs [0308]-[0312], wherein, any of the methods above, including method 500, wherein filtering the neighbor samples comprises filtering with a 1-D filter or a 2-D filter, and wherein filtering the neighbor samples comprises filtering luma neighbor samples with a first filter and chroma neighbor samples with a second filter, that are thus using the classification method discussed in paragraph [0228]. Thus Deng discloses filtering of the neighbor samples done upon the selection and classification of the neighboring samples.
Finally, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., “the claimed subject-matter is directed to a significant improvement in video codec efficiency by sharing a classification result between separate functional modules of the video codec, such as post-filtering and motion compensation, which are performed at different stages of the processing pipeline,” “[…] taking this classification result and "reusing" it for an entirely different codec process, such as post-filtering or motion compensation interpolation.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus the rejection of claim 1, and similarly claims 2, 9-10 & 26-27, is maintained under 35 USC 102(a)(2).
Applicant’s remarks filed 12/05/2025, pages 12-13, with respect to the patentability of claims 6, 11, 14-17, 26-29, and 32-37 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant relies on the patentability of the claims from which these claims depend to traverse the rejection without prejudice to any further basis for patentability of these claims based on the additional elements recited.
Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant because Deng discloses independent claim 1 as outlined below. Thus, claims 6, 11, 14-17, 26-29, and 32-37 are also rejected for the similar reasons as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 9-10, 14, 16-17, 26-27 & 32-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (US 2022/0248025 A1) (hereinafter Deng).
Regarding claim 1, Deng discloses a method comprising encoding a video [Abstract, method of video coding], wherein encoding the video comprises:
classifying samples of a picture of the video [Paragraph [0223]-[0236] & [0244]-[0251], classification of neighboring samples], the picture being a reconstructed picture that has been previously encoded or a reference picture [Paragraph [0121]-[0124], [0149], [0223]-[0236] & [0244]-[0251], Fig. 19-20, reconstructed neighboring samples from template, as being previously encoded and serving as a reference picture],
determining, for at least one sample or block of the picture, a first filter using the classification, the first filter being used by a first operation that uses a first version of the picture [Paragraph [0308]-[0312], While determining a cross-component prediction mode and model parameters, filtering luma neighbor samples with a determined low pass, 1-D, or 2-D first filter],
reusing the classification for determining a second filter for the at least one sample or block, the second filter being used by a second operation that uses a second version of the picture [Paragraph [0308]-[0312], While determining a cross-component prediction mode and model parameters, filtering chroma neighbor samples with a determined low pass, 1-D, or 2-D second filter].
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 is drawn to an apparatus having limitations similar to the method of using the same as claimed in claim 1 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, apparatus claim 2 corresponds to method claim 1 and is rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Furthermore, Deng discloses of discloses the apparatus, comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to encode a video [Paragraph [0064], processors executing software to encode video].
Regarding claim 6, Deng disclose the method of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first operation, respectively the second operation, is an operation among at least one of: a picture re-sampling, a motion compensation interpolation filtering, or a post-filtering [Paragraph [0308]-[0312], While determining a cross-component prediction mode and model parameters, filtering chroma neighbor samples with a determined low pass, 1-D, or 2-D second filter].
Regarding claim (9 & 14), claims (9 & 14) are drawn to a method of decoding a video having limitations similar to the method of using the same as claimed in claims (1 & 6) treated in the above rejection. Therefore, method claims (9 & 14) correspond to method claims (1 & 6) and are rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Furthermore, Deng discloses the method comprising decoding a video [Paragraph [0063], aspects of video decoding].
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is drawn to an apparatus having limitations similar to the method of using the same as claimed in claim 9 treated in the above rejections. Therefore, apparatus claim 10 corresponds to method claim 9 and is rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Furthermore, Deng discloses of discloses the apparatus, comprising one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors are configured to decode a video [Paragraph [0064], processors executing software to decode video].
Regarding claim 16, Deng discloses the method of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the second operation provides a modified part of the picture, the method further comprising: determining a prediction for at least one block of a second picture using the modified part, decoding the at least one block of the second picture using the prediction [Paragraph [0068]-[0069], [0101]-[0103] & [0218]-[0242] & [0398]-[0399], cross-component prediction mode determined from filtered chroma samples as second operation to reconstruct video with residues].
Regarding claim 17, Deng discloses the method of claim 9, and further discloses wherein the first operation provides a modified part of the picture, the method further comprising: resampling the modified part using at least one filter determined based on the classification, transmitting the resampled modified part to a display [Paragraph [0068]-[0069], [0101]-[0103] & [0218]-[0236] & [0398]-[0399], Display of resampled and filtered more than one row of neighbor samples of the current luma video block].
Regarding claims (26-27), claims (26-27) are drawn to non-transitory computer readable storage mediums having stored thereon instructions having limitations similar to the methods according to claims (1 & 9), respectively. Therefore, computer readable storage mediums claims (26-27) correspond to method claims (1 & 9), respectively and are rejected for the same rationale as used above.
Furthermore, Deng disclose of non-transitory computer readable storage mediums having stored thereon instructions for causing one or more processors to perform the methods [Paragraph [0065], Computer-readable media includes computer storage media. Storage media may be any available media that can be accessed by a computer. By way of example, and not limitation, such computer-readable media can include a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage, other magnetic storage devices, combinations of the aforementioned types of computer-readable media, or any other medium that can be used to store computer executable code in the form of instructions].
Regarding claim 28, Deng discloses the apparatus according to claim 10, and further comprises: at least one of (i) an antenna configured to receive a signal, the signal including data representative of a video, (ii) a band limiter configured to limit the received signal to a band of frequencies that includes the data representative of video, or (iii) a display configured to display the decoded video [Paragraph [0069], display apparatus 122 displaying decoded video data].
Regarding claim 32, Deng discloses the apparatus of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the first operation and the second operation are distinct [Paragraph [0224] & [0308]-[0312], Different filters may be applied on luma, as first operation, and chroma, as second operation].
Regarding claim 33, Deng discloses the apparatus of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the first operation and the second operation are distinct [Paragraph [0224] & [0308]-[0312], Different filters may be applied on luma, as first operation, and chroma, as second operation]..
Regarding claim 34, Deng discloses the apparatus of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the second operation provides a modified part of the picture, the one or more processors being further configured for: determining a prediction for at least one block of a second picture using the modified part, decoding the at least one block of the second picture using the prediction [Paragraph [0068]-[0069], [0101]-[0103] & [0218]-[0242] & [0398]-[0399], cross-component prediction mode determined from filtered chroma samples as second operation to reconstruct video with residues].
Regarding claim 35, Deng discloses the apparatus of claim 10, and further discloses wherein the first operation provides a modified part of the picture, the one or more processors is further configured for: resampling the modified part using at least one filter determined based on the classification, transmitting the resampled modified part to a display [Paragraph [0068]-[0069], [0101]-[0103] & [0218]-[0236] & [0398]-[0399], Display of resampled and filtered more than one row of neighbor samples of the current luma video block].
Regarding claim 36, Deng discloses the method of claim 9, and further discloses wherein classifying samples of the picture comprises determining a class index for each sample or each group of samples of the picture [Paragraph [0228]-[0238], Group/Mode/M-model/N-model index of cross-component prediction mode signaled explicitly by multiple syntax elements (e.g., flag/index)].
Regarding claim 37, Deng discloses the method of claim 9, and further discloses wherein classifying samples of the picture is based on directionality and activity values derived from local gradients determined for the samples [Paragraph [0169]-[0175], Gradient analysis performed, determining a main angular direction for template and histogram/gradient intensities as activity values].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (US 2022/0248025 A1) (hereinafter Deng) in view of Chuang et al. (US 2020/0228821 A1) (hereinafter Chuang).
Regarding claim 11, Deng discloses the method of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Deng discloses of the classification [Paragraph [0228]-[0238], Group/Mode/M-model/N-model index of cross-component prediction mode signaled explicitly by multiple syntax elements (e.g., flag/index)].
However, Deng does not disclose wherein the classification is stored in a decoded picture buffer storing reference pictures.
Chuang teaches of wherein the classification is stored in a decoded picture buffer storing reference pictures [Paragraph [0018], receiving input data associated with a current block coded or to be coded in an affine mode, calculating and storing affine parameters for a plurality of coded blocks in the current picture, retrieving the affine parameter of one or more coded block from the temporal buffer corresponding to a neighboring block of the current block to derive an affine candidate including affine MVs].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Deng to incorporate and implement storage of classification model parameters in a buffer in Chuang as above, for video data requires a large storage space to buffer intermediate data during encoding and decoding. Along with the growing high resolution and higher frame rates, as well as more powerful coding techniques are developed to achieve better coding performance, the storage requirement for video encoder and decoder increase significantly (Chuang, Paragraph [0003]).
Claims 15 & 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (US 2022/0248025 A1) (hereinafter Deng) in view of Hu et al. (US 2022/0030232 A1) (hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 15, Deng discloses the method of claim 9, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
Furthermore, Deng discloses wherein the first filter and the second filter are selected based on the classification, respectively [Paragraph [0224] & [0308]-[0312], Different filters may be applied on luma, as first operation, and chroma, as second operation]..
However, Deng does not disclose wherein the first filter and the second filter are selected from a first set of filters defined for the first operation and from a second set of filters defined for the second operation.
Hu teaches wherein the first filter and the second filter are selected from a first set of filters defined for the first operation and from a second set of filters defined for the second operation [Paragraph [0104], LF coefficients are signaled in ALF adaptation parameter sets (APS). One APS may contain one set of luma filters (i.e., one luma filter set) with up to 25 filters, one set of chroma filters with up to 8 chroma filters, one set of Cb cross-component ALF (CC-ALF) filters with up to 4 filters, and one set of Cr CC-ALF filters with up to 4 filters.].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lee to incorporate and implement the filter selections selection parameters in Hu as above, may allow for better content adaptation and coding efficiency by providing multiple adaptive loop filter sets from which to determine an adaptive loop filter. In addition, techniques are described for signaling the multiple adaptive loop filter sets, which may allow signaling with a relatively low overhead cost (Hu, Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 29, Deng discloses the apparatus according to claim 28, and is analyzed as previously discussed with respect to the claim.
However, Deng does not disclose the particulars of claim 29.
Hu teaches of further discloses of comprising a TV, a cell phone, a tablet or a Set Top Box [Paragraph [0029], computers, mobile devices, tablet computers, set-top boxes, telephone handsets such as smartphones, televisions].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Lee to incorporate and implement the filter selections selection parameters in Hu as above, may allow for better content adaptation and coding efficiency by providing multiple adaptive loop filter sets from which to determine an adaptive loop filter. In addition, techniques are described for signaling the multiple adaptive loop filter sets, which may allow signaling with a relatively low overhead cost (Hu, Paragraph [0005]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5707. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sa, 12PM - 10 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights