DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner incorporates herein the previous Response to Arguments.
On pages 8–11 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Xu fails to teach a set of target CCIP modes wherein the set of target CCIP modes are determined based on reconstructed neighboring samples. Examiner disagrees and believes the issue is still one of claim interpretation (see Final, dated 10/31/2025). The claim requires the set of target modes to be determined based on neighboring reconstructed samples. Simply put, target CCIP modes (CCLM or MMLM is synonymous with CCIP; see Applicant’s original claim 2) taught in the prior art are, for example, CCIP_L (left samples only), CCIP_T (top samples only), and CCIP_TL (both top and left samples). These modes are determined based on reconstructed neighboring samples of the current chroma block. Specifically, taking just one mode as an example, the skilled artisan, indeed this art as a whole, has literally determined that CCIP_L mode is based on the neighboring left reconstructed samples. The top and top-left modes are self-explanatory in view of the preceding sentence. It seems quite clear Applicant’s arguments are essentially insisting on a different interpretation, but the claim language simply does not require any other interpretation and Applicant’s arguments are frustratingly silent regarding where the skilled artisan can look to Applicant’s Specification to support any other interpretation other than the one Examiner assigns. What exactly is the feature Applicant is attempting to claim? Where in the Specification is it particularly described? Without more defining language in the claim and without some reference to the Specification, the skilled artisan would not find any other interpretation reasonable under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Accordingly, the rejections are sustained.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 11.
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.
(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.
Claims 1–5, 8, 10, 11, and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Xu (US 2022/0360800 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a method for video processing, comprising: determining, during a conversion between a current chroma block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a set of target modes of cross component intra prediction (CCIP) for the current chroma block, the determining of the set of target modes being based on reconstructed samples or predicted samples of neighboring samples of the current chroma block; and performing the conversion based on the set of target modes (Xu, ¶¶ 0312 and 0642: teach chroma prediction modes consisting of CCIP modes wherein the CCIP modes utilize templates (i.e. the template is based on reconstructed samples of neighboring samples); Xu, ¶ 0641: teaches chroma prediction modes form a candidate list from which a target prediction mode is chosen; Xu, ¶¶ 0641–0642: teaches a chroma prediction mode candidate list having CCIP modes stored therein wherein the modes are template-based and based on cost; Xu, ¶ 0301: explains any intra-prediction defines target modes based on reconstructed samples of neighboring blocks; Xu, ¶ 0312: teaches CCLM uses neighboring reconstructed pixels in a template).
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of target modes are determined further based on residual information of the neighboring samples (Xu, ¶¶ 0641–0642: teaches a chroma prediction mode candidate list having CCIP modes stored therein wherein the modes are template-based and based on cost; Examiner finds basing CCLM on cost is determining based on residual information since cost is calculated as residual cost), or wherein the neighboring samples are in the same color component of the current chroma block, or wherein the neighboring samples are in different color components of the current chroma block, or wherein determining the set of target modes comprises: determining the set of target modes based on a template comprising the reconstructed samples of the neighboring samples (Xu, ¶ 0301: explains any intra-prediction defines target modes based on reconstructed samples of neighboring blocks; Xu, ¶ 0312: teaches CCLM uses neighboring reconstructed pixels in a template), or wherein the CCIP comprises at least one of: cross-component linear model (CCLM) (Xu, ¶¶ 0311–0312: teaches CCLM), or multi-model linear model (MMLM) (Examiner notes it depends what we mean by MMLM; It could mean the multi-models are left-only, above-only, and both left and top as three multi-models (i.e. multi-directional) or it could mean there are multiple linear models represented by multiple luma-to-chroma correlation (linear regression models); see e.g. Fig. 19 of Ma), or wherein a template used to determine the set of target modes comprises at least one of: reconstructed samples adjacent to the current chroma block (Examiner notes CCIP/CCLM uses reconstructed luma and chroma components of a neighboring block, finds the correlation between those neighboring luma and chroma blocks, then copies that correlation (linear relationship) to predict a current chroma component from the current luma component; Therefore, a teaching of CCIP/CCLM necessarily teaches a template having reconstructed samples adjacent to the current block; Examiner interprets this broadly as merely saying that luma or chroma components of a neighboring block may or may not be “adjacent” in the sense of the sub-sampling of the chroma components in 4:2:0 sampling format; see e.g. Ma, Figs. 10–11), reconstructed samples non-adjacent to the current chroma block (Examiner interprets this broadly as merely saying that luma or chroma components of a neighboring block may not be “adjacent” in the sense of the sub-sampling of the chroma components in 4:2:0 sampling format), neighboring left-above reconstructed samples of the current chroma block, neighboring left reconstructed samples of the current chroma block, neighboring above reconstructed samples of the current chroma block (Xu, ¶ 0312: teaches left and top samples used as the reconstructed template), neighboring left-below reconstructed samples of the current chroma block, or neighboring right-above reconstructed samples of the current chroma block (Examiner notes the features of this claim are set out in the alternative and that many are addressed by Xu, alone; Deng, Fig. 31, or other prior art, have been found to teach the rest, especially under an obviousness rationale).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the set of target modes based on the template comprises: constructing a CCIP mode candidate list for the current chroma block; and determining the set of target modes from the CCIP mode candidate list based on the template (Xu, ¶¶ 0641–0642: teaches a chroma prediction mode candidate list having CCIP modes stored therein wherein the modes are template-based).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the CCIP mode candidate list comprises at least one of: a LM mode of cross-component linear model (CCLM), a LM_T mode of CCLM, a LM_L mode of CCLM, a MMLM mode of multi-model linear model (MMLM), a MMLM_T mode of MMLM, or a MMLM_L mode of MMLM (Xu, ¶ 0312: teaches left and top samples used as the reconstructed template), or wherein determining the set of target modes from the CCIP mode candidate list based on the template comprises: determining costs for part of or all of modes in the CCIP mode candidate list based on the template; and determining the set of target modes from the CCIP mode candidate list based on the costs (Examiner notes the features are set out in the alternative such that only one feature needs to be taught in the prior art; Xu, ¶¶ 0641–0642: teaches a chroma prediction mode candidate list having CCIP modes stored therein wherein the modes are template-based and are determined based on RDO cost).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses the method of claim 4, wherein determining the set of target modes from the CCIP mode candidate list based on the costs comprises: determining a mode with the minimum cost in the CCIP mode candidate list to be a first target mode in the set of target modes (Xu, ¶¶ 0641–0642: teaches a chroma prediction mode candidate list having CCIP modes stored therein wherein the modes are template-based and are determined based on RDO cost), or wherein determining the costs comprises: determining a set of parameters for a model of a first mode in the CCIP mode candidate list based on training samples of the template; determining predicted samples of the template based on the set of parameters and corresponding samples of the template, the corresponding samples being in a color component different from the template (Examiner finds this limitation hard to understand, but notes that conventional CCLM utilizes reconstructed luma RecL for predicting chroma, such that the template is luma and the predicted samples are chroma, thus being a different color component); and determining a first cost for the first mode based on the predicted samples of the template and reconstructed samples of the template (Examiner notes the features are set out in the alternative such that only one feature needs to be taught in the prior art; Ma, ¶ 0277: teaches MMLM grouping into two classes of luma/chroma correspondence is used as a training set to derive a linear model).
Regarding claim 8, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of target modes comprise a first subset of target modes for a first chroma component of the current chroma block and a second subset of target modes for a second chroma component of the current chroma block, the first subset and the second subset being determined individually (Examiner notes the chroma blocks are conventionally handled individually, but can also be handled together, for instance, using joint chroma coding as taught in Xu, ¶ 0191), or wherein performing the conversion comprises: determining predicted samples or reconstructed samples of at least one color component of the current chroma block based on the set of target modes of CCIP; and performing the conversion based on the predicted samples or the reconstructed samples of the at least one color component (Xu, ¶ 0311: teaches CCIP (i.e. CCLM)), or wherein performing the conversion comprises: determining predicted samples or reconstructed samples of at least one color component of the current chroma block based on the set of target modes of CCIP; and performing the conversion based on the predicted samples or the reconstructed samples of the at least one color component, wherein the set of target modes comprise a plurality of target modes and the target mode used for the conversion is indicated in the bitstream, or the target mode used for the conversion is determined on-the-fly, or the target mode used for the conversion is dependent on coding information of the current chroma block or a set of neighboring blocks of the current chroma block (Xu, ¶¶ 0641–0642: teaches a chroma prediction mode candidate list having CCIP modes stored therein along with potentially other modes wherein the CCIP modes are template-based and based on cost; Xu, ¶ 0644: teaches the chroma prediction mode index information is signaled in the bitstream or is otherwise decoded).
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein performing the conversion comprises: determining a plurality of predicted signals for the current chroma block based on a plurality of IPMs; determining a final prediction of the current chroma block based on the plurality of predicted signals; and performing the conversion based on the final prediction (Xu, ¶¶ 0641–0642: teaches a chroma prediction mode candidate list having CCIP modes stored therein along with potentially other modes wherein the CCIP modes are template-based and based on cost; Examiner finds the other modes, such as vertical or horizontal mode, DC and planar modes are IPMs that can be considered and possibly combined to form a final prediction).
Regarding claim 11, Xu discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the plurality of IPMs comprise at least one of: the set of target modes, a further mode of CCIP, or a target IPM (Xu, ¶¶ 0641–0642: teaches a chroma prediction mode candidate list having CCIP modes stored therein along with potentially other modes wherein the CCIP modes are template-based and based on cost; Examiner finds the other modes, such as vertical or horizontal mode, DC and planar modes are IPMs that can be considered and possibly combined to form a final prediction).
Regarding claim 17, Xu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the current chroma block into the bitstream, or wherein the conversion includes decoding the current chroma block from the bitstream (Xu, Abstract and ¶ 0003: teaches the point of the teachings of for encoding and decoding video compression information into a bitstream).
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in product-by-process form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim. In addition, product-by-process claims must be distinguishable from the prior art based on their physical attributes rather than the method by which they are made. Therefore, Examiner finds a prior art DVD or similar anticipates Applicant’s claim 20, drawn to a CRM storing a bitstream created by the recited method.
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 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 1–5, 8, 10, 11, and 17–20 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2022/0360800 A1). Any minor differences in terminology or implementation would be deemed obvious given how substantial the teachings of the prior art are regarding the claimed features. See 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections, supra, for specific claiming mapping.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2022/0360800 A1) and Ma (US 2021/0136392 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Xu and Ma teaches or suggests the method of claim 2, wherein a first set of training samples for determining parameters for a model of a first mode of CCIP for the template are the same as a second set of training samples for determining parameters for the model for the current chroma block (Examiner does not understand what this claim is attempting to cover; Ma, ¶ 0277: teaches the MMLM is optional such that one does not have to separate the training sets by classifying the samples into two groups (compare Ma’s Figs. 16 and 19) and also teaches the sample classification is the same for the current block and the neighboring block; Under BRI, both of those teachings appear to teach or suggest the multiple interpretations available for these claimed features).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Xu, with those of Ma, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of CCIP would be led to their relevant teachings and because Ma is merely explaining that the linear relationship between the luma and chroma components can exhibit discrete correlations such that one skilled in the art would be led to consider better line fitting by separating the data into discrete subsets as shown in Ma’s Figs. 16 and 19. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Xu and Ma used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Ma, and Deng (US 2022/0248025 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Xu, Ma, and Deng teaches or suggests the method of claim 6, wherein a shape of the template is the same as a shape of the current chroma block, or a size of the template is the same as a size of the current chroma block (Ma, Fig. 9: teaches that due to subsampling, the size of the left and above templates match the size of the chroma block; Deng, Figs. 22–31: show template regions with samples matching the size of the current block; Deng, ¶ 0159: teaches the size does not actually mean the size of the block, but merely the size of one dimension or side of the block although either interpretation would appear obvious in view of Deng’s teachings), or the number of training samples in the first set is the same as the number of training samples in the second set (Examiner notes the features are set out in the alternative such that only one feature needs to be taught in the prior art).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Xu and Ma, with those of Deng, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of CCIP would be led to their relevant teachings and because Deng is merely explaining that the template dimensions can desirably be set to the size of the block or another size. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Xu, Ma, and Deng used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2022/0360800 A1) and Choi (US 2022/0038683 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xu and Choi teaches or suggests the method of claim 8, wherein the first subset of target modes are determined in the same manner as the second subset of target modes (Examiner notes it is understood in the art when talking about the chroma block that both chroma channels are handled in the same manner unless explicitly stated otherwise; Choi, ¶¶ 0092–0093 and 0096: teaches the CCLM process works the same for Cb and Cr chroma images but can also be different and that CCLM can be used to predict Cb from Cr (or vice versa)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Xu, with those of Choi, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of CCIP would be led to their relevant teachings and because Choi is merely explaining that the linear relationship between the luma and chroma components for CCLM works the same regardless of chroma channel and likewise teaches that a linear relationship can also obvious exist between two chroma channels. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Xu and Choi used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Claims 12–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US 2022/0360800 A1) and Ghaznavi Youvalari (US 2023/0262223 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Xu and Ghaznavi Youvalari teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein whether a target chroma block of the video is coded with a decoder-side derivation of CCIP (DCCIP) is determined on-the-fly, or wherein whether a target chroma block of the video is coded with DCCIP is determined based on at least one of: whether CCIP is allowed, block dimensions, a block size, a block depth, a slice type, a picture type, a partition tree type, a block location, or a color component, or wherein information on DCCIP is indicated as a set of syntax elements in the bitstream (Ghaznavi Youvalari, ¶¶ 0214–0217: teaches decoder-side intra derivation (DIMD) including CCLM mode(s) which may be derived or based on signaled syntax information, including size of block etc.; Examiner notes the features are set out in the alternative such that only one feature needs to be taught in the prior art).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Xu and Ghaznavi Youvalari teaches or suggests the method of claim 12, wherein information on DCCIP for chroma components of the current chroma block is indicated in the bitstream by one syntax element of the set of syntax elements, or information on DCCIP for chroma components is indicated in the bitstream by a plurality of syntax elements of the set of syntax elements (Ghaznavi Youvalari, ¶¶ 0214–0217: teaches decoder-side intra derivation (DIMD) including CCLM mode(s) which may be derived or based on signaled syntax information).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Xu and Ghaznavi Youvalari teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein whether a target chroma block of the video is allowed to be coded with DCCIP is dependent on a set of syntax elements (Ghaznavi Youvalari, ¶¶ 0214–0217: teaches decoder-side intra derivation (DIMD) including CCLM mode(s) which may be derived or based on signaled syntax information).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Xu and Ghaznavi Youvalari teaches or suggests the method of claim 14, wherein the set of syntax elements are indicated in the bitstream as general constraints information, or wherein the set of syntax elements are included in one of: a sequence header, a picture header, a sequence parameter set (SPS), a video parameter set (VPS), a dependency parameter set (DPS), a decoding capability information (DCI), a picture parameter set (PPS), an adaptation parameter sets (APS), a slice header, or a tile group header (Ghaznavi Youvalari, ¶¶ 0214–0217: teaches decoder-side intra derivation (DIMD) including CCLM mode(s) which may be derived or based on signaled syntax information; Ghaznavi Youvalari, ¶ 0157: teaches a sps_cclm_enabled_flag, which is obviously the type of syntax element being referenced in Ghaznavi Youvalari, ¶¶ 0214–0217).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 15, wherein the target chroma block is not allowed to be coded with DCCIP, if a syntax element of the set of syntax elements indicates general constrain on DCCIP is equal to a predetermined value (Ghaznavi Youvalari, ¶¶ 0214–0217: teaches decoder-side intra derivation (DIMD) including CCLM mode(s) which may be derived or based on signaled syntax information; Ghaznavi Youvalari, ¶ 0157: teaches a sps_cclm_enabled_flag, which is obviously the type of syntax element being referenced in Ghaznavi Youvalari, ¶¶ 0214–0217).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Francois (US 2022/0078405 A1) teaches MDLM is an improvement of basic CCLM and allows the possibility of selecting only left or only above templates to derive the linear parameters (alpha and beta) (¶ 0058).
Choi (US 2022/0038683 A1) teaches CCLM parameters can be derived from cross-correlation between Cb and Cr (¶ 0094) or template and the neighboring luma reference sample area and the difference between the average values (¶ 0094).
Chen (US 2021/0368205 A1) teaches using limited modes for chroma when ISP is used (e.g. ¶ 0098 et seq.).
Ma (US 2021/0136392 A1) teaches below-left samples (e.g. ¶ 0018) and MDLM and MMLM (e.g. ¶ 0015) and teaches multiple linear correlations between samples (MMLM) (e.g. Fig. 19).
Huo (US 2021/0368167 A1) teaches MMLM training sets (¶ 0147 and Fig. 6).
Ghaznavi Youvalari (US 2023/0262223 A1) teaches decoder-side derivation (e.g. ¶¶ 0214–0217), teaches deriving modes for each color channel or not (¶¶ 0218–0219), and combining preliminary predictions into a final prediction which can include consideration of CCLM modes (¶ 0220).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
MICHAEL J. HESS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2481
/MICHAEL J HESS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights