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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Both claims are ending with a comma instead of a period. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ITU-T H.266 (08/2020), Versatile video coding, International Telecommunication Union, Telecommunication Standardization Sector, approved 29 August 2020, Equivalent text published as ISO/IEC 23090-3:2021, https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.266-202008-S/en, referred to as H.266 hereinafter.
Regarding Claim 1, BASEREF shows a system, comprising:
at least one memory that stores computer-executable instructions;
and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory and execute the computer-executable instructions to:
receive encoded bitstream data of a frame with multiple tiles (8.1; 8.1.2; 8.3.2; 8.3.3; 8.8.3.1 states the input is a bitstream and discusses slices, CTUs, tiles, and picture decoding.);
divide each tile into multiple coding tree units (CTUs) (8.1.2; 8.8.3.1; 8.8.3.3; 8.8.3.4 discusses CTUs and block boundaries and supports CTU-based partitioning.);
decode Luma and Chroma pixels of each CTU using either a single-tree mode or a dual-tree mode (8.4.1; 8.4.3; 8.5.1; 8.6.1; 8.7.1);
execute a cross-component linear model (CCLM) prediction to predict Chroma pixels based on decoded Luma pixels (8.4.3; 8.4.4; 8.4.5.2.14);
and store the decoded Luma pixels and the predicted Chroma pixels in a storage (8.7.5.1; 8.7.5.2; 8.7.5.3; 8.1.2).
Regarding claim 2, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, further comprising computer-executable instructions to decode, in the single-tree mode, the Luma pixels for a given prediction block prior to decoding the Chroma pixels for the same block within a CTU (8.4.1; 8.4.3; In SINGLE_TREE, the excerpt first decodes luma, then chroma. Section 8.4.1 expressly processes luma first and then chroma when treeType is SINGLE_TREE.) .
Regarding claim 3, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, further comprising computer-executable instructions to decode, in the dual-tree mode, all Luma pixels for all prediction blocks inside a CTU prior to the decoding of the respective Chroma pixels (8.4.1; 8.4.3; 8.4.4; 8.7.1 discloses dual-tree operation, where luma and chroma are handled in separate trees.).
Regarding claim 4, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, further comprising computer-executable instructions to down-sample a Luma block comprising the Luma pixels using either a 5-tap filter or a 6-tap filter (8.4.5.2.13 and the operations surrounding pDsY, which represents a 5-tap filter.).
Regarding claim 5, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, further comprising computer-executable instructions to derive Luma neighbor reconstruction parameters from Luma data (8.4.5.2.14; 8.4.5.2.8; 8.4.5.2.9; 8.4.5.2.10).
Regarding claim 6, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 5 above, further comprising computer-executable instructions to use the Luma neighbor reconstruction parameters with down-sampled Luma block for the CCLM prediction (8.4.5.2.14).
Regarding claim 7, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 6 above, wherein the CCLM prediction utilizes the Luma neighbor reconstruction parameters in conjunction with down-sampling Luma reconstruction pixels (8.4.5.2.14; 8.4.4).
Regarding claim 9, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, further comprising computer-executable instructions to receive second encoded bitstream data incorporating luma mapping and chroma scaling (LMCS) parameters and prediction data (8.8.1; 8.8.2.1; 8.8.2.2; 8.7.5.2; 8.7.5.3).
Regarding Claim 10, BASEREF shows a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions which when executed by one or more processors result in performing operations comprising:
receiving encoded bitstream data of a frame with multiple tiles (8.1; 8.1.2; 8.3.2; 8.3.3; 8.8.3.1 states the input is a bitstream and discusses slices, CTUs, tiles, and picture decoding.);
dividing each tile into multiple coding tree units (CTUs) (8.1.2; 8.8.3.1; 8.8.3.3; 8.8.3.4 discusses CTUs and block boundaries and supports CTU-based partitioning.);
decoding Luma and Chroma pixels of each CTU using either a single-tree mode or a dual-tree mode (8.4.1; 8.4.3; 8.5.1; 8.6.1; 8.7.1);
executing a cross-component linear model (CCLM) prediction to predict Chroma pixels based on decoded Luma pixels (8.4.3; 8.4.4; 8.4.5.2.14);
and storing the decoded Luma pixels and the predicted Chroma pixels in a storage (8.7.5.1; 8.7.5.2; 8.7.5.3; 8.1.2).
Regarding claim 11, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 10 above, wherein the operations further comprise decoding, in the single-tree mode, the Luma pixels for a given prediction block prior to decoding the Chroma pixels for the same block within a CTU (8.4.1; 8.4.3; In SINGLE_TREE, the excerpt first decodes luma, then chroma. Section 8.4.1 expressly processes luma first and then chroma when treeType is SINGLE_TREE.).
Regarding claim 12, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 10 above, wherein the operations further comprise decoding, in the dual-tree mode, all Luma pixels for all prediction blocks inside a CTU prior to the decoding of the respective Chroma pixels (8.4.1; 8.4.3; 8.4.4; 8.7.1 discloses dual-tree operation, where luma and chroma are handled in separate trees.).
Regarding claim 13, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 10 above, wherein the operations further comprise down-sampling a Luma block comprising the Luma pixels using either a 5-tap filter or a 6-tap filter (8.4.5.2.13 and the operations surrounding pDsY, which represents a 5-tap filter.).
Regarding claim 14, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 10 above, wherein the operations further comprise deriving Luma neighbor reconstruction parameters from Luma data (8.4.5.2.14; 8.4.5.2.8; 8.4.5.2.9; 8.4.5.2.10).
Regarding claim 15, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 14 above, wherein the operations further comprise using the Luma neighbor reconstruction parameters with down-sampled Luma block for the CCLM prediction (8.4.5.2.14).
Regarding claim 16, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 15 above, wherein the CCLM prediction utilizes the Luma neighbor reconstruction parameters in conjunction with down-sampling Luma reconstruction pixels (8.4.5.2.14; 8.4.4).
Regarding claim 18, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 10 above, wherein the operations further comprise receiving second encoded bitstream data incorporating luma mapping and chroma scaling (LMCS) parameters and prediction data (8.8.1; 8.8.2.1; 8.8.2.2; 8.7.5.2; 8.7.5.3).
Regarding Claim 19, BASEREF shows a method comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, encoded bitstream data of a frame with multiple tiles (8.1; 8.1.2; 8.3.2; 8.3.3; 8.8.3.1 states the input is a bitstream and discusses slices, CTUs, tiles, and picture decoding.);
dividing each tile into multiple coding tree units (CTUs) (8.1.2; 8.8.3.1; 8.8.3.3; 8.8.3.4 discusses CTUs and block boundaries and supports CTU-based partitioning.);
decoding Luma and Chroma pixels of each CTU using either a single-tree mode or a dual-tree mode (8.4.1; 8.4.3; 8.5.1; 8.6.1; 8.7.1);
executing a cross-component linear model (CCLM) prediction to predict Chroma pixels based on decoded Luma pixels (8.4.3; 8.4.4; 8.4.5.2.14);
and storing the decoded Luma pixels and the predicted Chroma pixels in a storage (8.7.5.1; 8.7.5.2; 8.7.5.3; 8.1.2).
Regarding claim 20, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 19 above, in the single-tree mode, the Luma pixels for a given prediction block prior to decoding the Chroma pixels for the same block within a CTU (8.4.1; 8.4.3; In SINGLE_TREE, the excerpt first decodes luma, then chroma. Section 8.4.1 expressly processes luma first and then chroma when treeType is SINGLE_TREE.).
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over H.266 in view of Tsai (US 2023/0065073 A1) referred to as TSAI hereinafter.
Regarding claim 8, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but TSAI does specifically discuss further comprising computer-executable instructions to store a 32×32 set of down sampled Luma reconstruction pixels from 64×64 set of Luma reconstruction pixels in a separate storage (Paragraphs [0053], [0054] disclose down sampling to 32x32 and storing to buffer separately into said buffer under BRI as it is unspecified exactly what it need be separately stored from.).
Both H.266 and TSAI are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify H.266 in the spirit of TSAI because reduces latency by rescheduling CST processing so chroma pipeline units are processed after luma processing has started, rather than after luma processing has fully completed (Paragraphs [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 17, BASEREF shows the limitations as per Claim 1 above, however failing to but TSAI does specifically discuss wherein the operations further comprise storing a 32×32 set of down sampled Luma reconstruction pixels from 64×64 set of Luma reconstruction pixels in a separate storage (Paragraphs [0053], [0054] disclose down sampling to 32x32 and storing to buffer separately into said buffer under BRI as it is unspecified exactly what it need be separately stored from.).
Both H.266 and TSAI are analogous art to that of the claimed invention in that they lie in the same field of endeavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify H.266 in the spirit of TSAI because reduces latency by rescheduling CST processing so chroma pipeline units are processed after luma processing has started, rather than after luma processing has fully completed (Paragraphs [0007]-[0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the Notice of References Cited form (Pto-892) for additional references discovered but not applied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN W. RIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1068. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7.00 am - 4.30 pm.
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, Jamie J Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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.
JUSTIN W. RIDER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/Justin W Rider/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights