DETAILED 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Claim 1 is amended … The Office Action alleges that paragraphs [0436] and [0438] of Jun, paragraph [0135], Figs. 3 and 8 of Ghaznavi, and paragraphs [0172]-[0173] of Koo disclose Feature A See Office Action at p. 12-14.”
Examiner notes that the newly amended language was not presented for the previous Office Action. See treatment of the newly amended language in the updated reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “As seen above, Jun merely discloses that the first color component block ( e.g., luma component block) is down-sampled for prediction of the chroma component block. However, Jun neither discloses that weights of the luma component block are down-sampled to determine weights of the chroma component block, nor discloses that the weights of the luma component block are weights corresponding to an angular weighted prediction (AWP) mode or a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) mode.”
Examiner notes that Applicant does not address the full reasons for rejection citing June, Ghaznavi, and Koo. As noted in the reasons for rejection below, performing sample wise weighting requires that the sample matrix and the weighting matrix have the same dimensions, so if one is downsampled the other one must be downsampled in the same manner in order to implement the prior art functionality.
Applicant does not present any evidence that
Applicant argues: “Furthermore, in Jun, the weights of the chroma component block are determined independent of the weights of the luma component block. Specifically, the weights of the chroma component block are determined according to at least one of: the intra prediction mode of the current block, the size/shape of the current block, the position of the prediction target sample, encoding mode, the inter prediction mode, or the position of the sample to be prediction (see Jun at paragraphs [0530]-[0532], [0566], [0567], and [0570]), rather than determined by downsampling the weights of the luma component block.”
Examiner notes that the cited paragraphs in Jun do not discuss “chroma component block,” and do not mention dependence or independence of chroma an luma. However, Jun Paragraph 566 does indicate that the size/shape of the current block is a consideration just as it is a consideration in the claims. Koo is cited for teaching downsampling as a means for addressing this consideration. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Furthermore, in Ghaznavi, the weights of the chroma block are determined independent of the weights of the luma block. Specifically, the weights of the chroma block are determined based on at least one of: the prediction direction or the mode identifier of the derived mode, the prediction direction, the location of the reference samples or the mode identifier of the CCLM mode, or the size of the block (see Ghaznavi at paragraphs [0198]-[0210] and Fig. 8), rather than determined by down-sampling the weights of the luma block.”
Examiner notes that Ghaznavi also indicates that the size of the block is relevant to determining the weights as it is in the claims. Koo is cited for teaching downsampling as a means for addressing this consideration. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “As seen above, Koo discloses size reduction of the transform matrix, which pertains to transform operation and is fundamentally different from the prediction operation in amended claim 1. Thus, Koo is silent on that: a second weighting matrix of the luma component used to obtain a final prediction block of the luma component is downsampled to determine a first weighting matrix of the chroma component used to obtain a final prediction block of the chroma component, and the second weighting matrix is a weighting matrix corresponding to an angular weighted prediction (AWP) mode or a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) mode, as required by Feature A of amended claim 1.”
Examiner notes that Koo is cited for teaching that to reduce the memory and the processing requirements, both the sample matrix and multiplying matrix can be downsampled, which is exactly the solution proposed by the present Specification. Jun and Ghaznavi are cited to teach features directed to using weights and matrices in chroma derivation mode, and all the cited references are directed to applying the VVC video coding standard.
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits that the "downsampling of block/sample" may be confused with "downsampling of weighting matrix" in the Office Action. As understood to those having ordinary skill in the art, Feature A, which relates to a second weighting matrix of the luma component used to obtain a final prediction block of the luma component is downsampled to determine a first weighting matrix of the chroma component used to obtain a final prediction block of the chroma component, and the second weighting matrix is a weighting matrix corresponding to an angular weighted prediction (AWP) mode or a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) mode, can have various technical improvements over the cited art. Feature A is not a simple dimension reduction operation, but a specific data reuse strategy that can reduce signaling overhead, effectively utilize correlation between channels (such as luma channel and chroma channel), and improve the efficiency and consistency of cross-component prediction.”
Examiner notes that Koo performs the same downsampling operation for the same efficiencies. It is readily recognizable in the art that smaller matrices are easier to store and process. See reasons for rejection below.
Applicant argues: “Consequently, person having ordinary skill in the art would not have any motivation to modify Jun, Ghaznavi, and Koo such that the final prediction block of the first component of the current block is obtained by weighting the at least two prediction blocks corresponding to the at least two intra prediction modes of the first component according to the first weighting matrix of the first component, as required by Feature B of amended claim 1.”
Examiner notes that prior art teaches exactly this feature. See Ghaznavi Fig. 8 and reasons for rejection below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 8-11, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200366900 to Jun, also cited in and IDS, in view of US 20230262223 to Ghaznavi (“Ghaznavi”) in view of US 20220132134 to Koo (“Koo”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A method for video encoding, comprising: (See “method of encoding a video” Jun, Paragraph 19.)
obtaining a current block, the current block comprising a first component, wherein the first component is a chroma component; (“for a current block” Jun, Paragraph 19. “terms "block" and "unit" may be used as the same meaning … the unit may include a luma component block, a chroma component block associated with the luma component block,” Jun, Paragraphs 72, 81.)
determining an initial intra prediction mode of the first component of the current block; … when the initial intra prediction mode is a derivation mode, (“the first intra-prediction mode may be derived” Jun, Paragraph 20.)
wherein the second component is a luma component; (“the unit may include a luma component block, a chroma component block associated with the luma component block,” Jun, Paragraphs 72, 81.)
obtaining at least two intra prediction modes of a second component corresponding to the current block; (“comprise deriving a first intra-prediction mode for a current block, generating a first intra-prediction block corresponding to the first intra-prediction mode, … deriving a second intra-prediction mode for the current block, generating a second intra-prediction block corresponding to the second intra-prediction mode, and generating a final intra-prediction block by using a weighted sum of the first intra-prediction block and the second intra-prediction block,” which exemplifies the intra prediction mode of the first component. Jun, Paragraph 19. This exemplifies the intra prediction modes of the luma component, consistent with the original Claim 3.)
assigning the at least two intra prediction modes of the second component as intra prediction modes of the first component of the current block, wherein the intra prediction modes of the first component of the current block comprise at least two intra prediction modes; (“the example in which an intra prediction mode of a luma block corresponding to a chroma block is used … an intra prediction mode of one chroma block may be derived by using an intra prediction mode of the luma block” Jun, Paragraphs 315, 318. Cumulatively, see a specific example as “a cross-component linear model (CCLM) prediction mode is used in the VVC, for which the chroma samples are predicted based on the reconstructed luma samples of the same CU” with at least two modes embodies as LM, LM-A, and LM-L modes. Ghaznavi, Paragraphs 135-140, 167 and similarly in Koo, Paragraphs 9-12, 100. See statements of motivation below.)
for each of the at least two intra prediction modes of the first component of the current block, obtaining a prediction block corresponding the intra prediction mode by performing intra prediction on the first component of the current block using the intra prediction mode; (“comprise deriving a first intra-prediction mode for a current block, generating a first intra-prediction block corresponding to the first intra-prediction mode, deriving a second intra-prediction mode for the current block, … [and cumulatively] generating a second intra-prediction block corresponding to the second intra-prediction mode, and generating a final intra-prediction block by using a weighted sum of the first intra-prediction block and the second intra-prediction block,” which exemplifies the intra prediction mode of the first component. Jun, Paragraph 19. Note a pertinent application to CCLM in Ghaznavi, Paragraphs 135-140, 167 and similarly in Koo, Paragraphs 9-12, 100. See statements of motivation below.)
determining a first weighting [matrix] of the first component; (For example, the method can determine “a weight for the first intra-prediction block or the second intra-prediction block corresponding to the first intra-prediction mode or the second intra-prediction mode that are same as a predetermined mode may be higher” Jun, Paragraph 16. See treatment of weighing matrix below with respect to a pertinent application to CCLM in view of Ghaznavi, Paragraphs 135-140, 167 and Koo, Paragraphs 9-12, 100.)
obtaining the final prediction block of the first component of the current block by weighting the prediction blocks corresponding to the intra prediction modes according to the first weighting [matrix].” (For example, prior art performs the assigning of the two modes as: “generating a final intra-prediction block by using a weighted sum of the first intra-prediction block and the second intra-prediction block.” Jun, Paragraph 19. “an intra prediction mode of one chroma block may be derived by using an intra prediction mode of the luma block” thus predicting the first and the second blocks in the same manner. Jun, Paragraphs 315, 318. See application to matrices below.)
Jun does not explicitly teach a “weighting matrix of the first component … wherein the first weighting matrix is applied to the prediction block corresponding to the intra prediction mode in elementwise product,” for the weighted intra prediction.
However, the teaching in Jun, Paragraph 16 “a weight for the first intra-prediction block or the second intra-prediction block corresponding to the first intra-prediction mode or the second intra-prediction mode that are same as a predetermined mode may be higher” is a mathematical equivalent of a dot product, which is an element-wise product between each intra-prediction block and a matrix having the same size and having the one weight value. This exemplifies the function described in Specification, Paragraphs 166 and 338.
Cumulatively, Ghaznavi teaches this in the context of coding intra-prediction using the VVC video coding standard: “Matrix weighted intra prediction (MIP) method is a newly added intra prediction technique into VVC,” with reference to the newer VVC coding standard. Ghaznavi, Paragraph 167 and Fig. 8. “The first and second predictions may be combined with equal/unequal sample-wise weighting where the weights of each predicted sample may differ from others, … The weight values of the samples may be decided based on the prediction directions, the locations of the reference samples … The weight values of a prediction block may be set to zero for some block positions ...” indicating a mathematical equivalent of a dot product with a weight matrix of the same size as the sample matrix. Ghaznavi, Paragraph 202, 205, 207, and Fig. 8. This is substantively similar to the functions in Specification, Paragraphs 166 and 338.
(Also note matrix cross product embodiments in Ghaznavi Fig. 5 and Koo Paragraphs 8-12, 100. See statements of motivation below.)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Jun to intra-prediction coding using a weight matrix product as taught in Ghaznavi, in order to apply the weighting function according to the VVC video coding standard. Ghaznavi. Paragraph 167.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness. Specification describes this as a feature of the VVC standard in Paragraph 149, which is confirmed by Ghaznavi and Koo above.
[determining a first weighting matrix of the first component] by [downsampling] a second weighting matrix of the second component corresponding to the current block, in response to a number of samples contained in the first component of the current block being less than a number of samples contained in the second component corresponding to the current block; (Jun and Ghaznavi teach “When the first color component block has a larger size than the second color component block, the first color component block is down-sampled to have a size equal to that of the second color component block … the down-sampling may be performed in a manner of selecting a specific sample among one or more samples.” Jun, Paragraph 436, 438. See similarly in Ghaznavi, Paragraph 135 and Figs. 3 and 8. Then they perform “sample-wise weighting where the weights of each predicted sample may differ from others” according to Ghaznavi, Paragraph 202 and where the weights of each predicted sample are the same as in Jun, Paragraphs 9, 19.
Since this mathematic operation requires the size of the weight matrix to be the same as the size of the sample matrix, the requirement implies that the size of weight matrix must be downsized in proportion to the sample matrix. See Ghaznavi Fig. 8, where both the weighting matrix and the reference block (second component) must correspond in size to the predicted block size (first component) in order to perform weighting and summing operations: “equal/unequal sample-wise weighting where the weights of each predicted sample may differ from others,” thus a one-to-one correspondence between sample values and weight values. Ghaznavi, Paragraph 202. This is the same reasoning provided in Specification, Paragraph 164.)
Note that Jun and Ghaznavi do not state that they perform “downsampling” on the weighting matrix to correspond in size to a downsampled block.
Koo explicitly teaches this concept in the context of CCLM and matrix weighted intra prediction under the VVC standard: “Since the total number of transform coefficients for the target block is reduced from N to R, … the size of the reduced transform matrix is reduced to 16x64 (Rx N),” Koo, Paragraphs 172-173.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Jun and Ghaznavi to perform “determining a first weighting matrix of the first component by downsampling a second weighting matrix of the second component corresponding to the current block, in response to a number of samples contained in the first component of the current block being less than a number of samples contained in the second component corresponding to the current block” in the manner described in Koo, in order for the transform matrix to correspond to the downsampled number of coefficients of the target block, which in turn provides benefits in smaller transmission size, smaller memory requirement, and lower computational requirement to perform the operation. See Koo, Paragraphs 172-173 and similarly in Ghaznavi, Paragraph 60 and Fig. 8.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness. Downsampling is a well-known way of reducing vectors and matrices to a smaller size for purposes of compression or reduced computational load, and it is well known that element wise matrix operations require the operand matrices to have the same size, so that when one matrix is downsampled the other matrix must be downsampled in the same manner.
wherein the second weighting matrix is a weighting matrix corresponding to an angular weighted prediction (AWP) mode or a geometric partitioning mode (GPM) mode and (For example, the predicted unit may be a geometric partitioning: “the unit may include a luma component block, a chroma component block associated with the luma component block, and a syntax element of each color component block. The unit may have various sizes and forms, and particularly, the form of the unit may be a two-dimensional geometrical figure such as a square shape, a rectangular shape, a trapezoid shape, a triangular shape, a pentagonal shape, etc. In addition, unit information may include at least one of a unit type indicating the coding unit, the prediction unit” Jun, Paragraph 81. Cumulatively note that “A directional prediction mode refers to at least one of a horizontal mode, a vertical mode, and an angular mode having a predetermined angle.” Jun, Paragraphs 197, 405 and Fig. 4. See application of matrices to prediction modes above.)
[wherein] … a final prediction block of the second component, is obtained by weighting at least two prediction blocks corresponding to the at least two intra prediction modes of the second component according to the second weighting matrix, (Note that this claim language describes the intended properties of the second component but does not require the present method to obtain the second component. Prior art teaches this property: “generating a final intra-prediction block by using a weighted sum of the first intra-prediction block and the second intra-prediction block.” Jun, Paragraph 19 and similarly in Ghaznavi, Fig. 8. “an intra prediction mode of one chroma block may be derived by using an intra prediction mode of the luma block” thus predicting the first and the second blocks in the same manner. Jun, Paragraphs 315, 318. See application of weighting matrices as weights above.)
a number of weights contained in the second weight matrix is the same as the number of the samples contained in the second component corresponding to the current block, and a number of weights contained in the first weight matrix is the same as the number of the samples contained in the first component of the current block; and” (“Weighted intra prediction with matrix multiplication” Ghaznavi, Paragraphs 98, 167. For each predicted block size, “The first and second predictions may be combined with equal/unequal sample-wise weighting where the weights of each predicted sample may differ from others,” indicating a dot product with a weight matrix of the same size as the sample. Ghaznavi, Paragraph 202 and Fig. 8. Where the chroma block is smaller than luma, the chroma weighting matrix size is equivalently smaller than luma in order to preserve the sample-wide weighting relationship. Ghaznavi, Figs. 6-7. See statements of motivation above.)
Claim 8, “A method for video decoding,” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, because it exactly reverses the encoding steps of Claim 1, and because prior art teaches “the method of decoding a video” in Paragraphs 10-18, and
“parsing a bitstream (“The decoding apparatus 200 may receive a bitstream output from the encoding apparatus 100.” Jun, Paragraph 148.)
to obtain a current block and at least two intra prediction modes of a second component corresponding to the current block,” (“The decoding apparatus 200 may obtain a reconstructed residual block [current block] by decoding the input bitstream, and generate a prediction block. … The decoding target block may be called a current block.” Jun, Paragraphs 148, 150. “In the method of decoding a video according to the present invention, the first intra-prediction mode may be derived on the basis of at least one candidate mode included in a MPM list of the current block. In the method of decoding a video according to the present invention, the first intra-prediction mode may be derived on the basis of intra-prediction modes of one or more neighboring blocks to the current block.” Jun, Paragraphs 10-11.
Regarding Claim 9: “The method of claim 8, wherein the bitstream carries a weighted-prediction flag, wherein the weighted-prediction flag indicates whether a prediction block of the second component is obtained by predicting using the at least two intra prediction modes.” (“a mode to which a relatively large weight is assigned may be pre-defined or signaled.” Jun, Paragraph 279. “A coding parameter may include information (flag, index, etc.) such as syntax element that is encoded in an encoder and signaled to a decoder, and information derived when performing encoding or decoding. The coding parameter may mean information required when encoding or decoding an image. For example, at least one value … prediction mode (intra prediction or inter prediction),” Jun, Paragraph 136. Although Jun does not explicitly put together these teachings to form an example where the mode that uses weighted prediction is indicated by a flag, the teachings indicate that a flag would be a known and conventional way by which the prediction mode would be signaled in a coded bitstream.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use “the weighted-prediction flag” to indicate “whether a prediction block of the second component is obtained by predicting using the at least two intra prediction modes” as taught in Jun, in order to signal to the decoder that this mode was used to encode the bitstream using the standard video coding practice. See, Jun, Paragraph 136.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 10: “The method of claim 9, wherein the bitstream carries mode information of the initial intra prediction mode of the first component of the current block.” (“In the method of decoding a video according to the present invention, the first intra-prediction mode may be derived on the basis of at least one candidate mode included in a MPM list [mode information] of the current block.” Jun, Paragraph 10.)
Regarding Claim 11: “The method of claim 9, wherein determining the initial intra prediction mode of the first component of the current block comprises: determining the initial intra prediction mode of the first component of the current block as the derivation mode, when the bitstream carries the weighted-prediction flag and does not carry mode information of the initial intra prediction mode of the first component of the current block.” (“In the method of decoding a video according to the present invention, the first intra-prediction mode may be derived on the basis of intra-prediction modes of one or more neighboring blocks to the current block,” which is not based on the MPM list (discussed in Claim 10), and would not be so indicated. In this case, “a mode to which a relatively large weight is assigned may be pre-defined or signaled.” Jun, Paragraph 279. “A coding parameter may include information (flag, index, etc.) …” Jun, Paragraph 136. See statement of motivation in Claim 9.)
Claim 20, “A video decoder, comprising a processor and a memory storing a computer program which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: …” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 8, and because prior art teaches: “The embodiments of the present invention may be implemented in a form of program instructions, which are executable by various computer components, and recorded in a computer-readable recording medium.” Jun, Paragraph 583.
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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights