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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/01/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 references claim 20, which is cancelled. Examiner interprets this a typographical oversight and meant to be “claim 21” consistent with the claim tree wherein claim 7 depends from claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 10, 15–17, 19, and 21–24 use both “neighbouring” and “neighboring” as spellings sometimes within the same claim. Examiner requires consistency in the spelling of the term throughout the claim set and recommends using the American English version of the term, i.e. “neighboring.”
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment to claim 19, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is withdrawn. Remarks, 10.
On page 14 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the new features added by way of amendment are not disclosed in VVC Draft 8, i.e. the Bross reference cited in the preceding Office Action. Examiner disagrees for the reasons stated, infra, with respect to the prior art rejection of claim 1. Specifically, it appears Bross’s Expression (378) on page 210 teaches, for sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag equal to 0, the same expressions as recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, because Applicant’s purported contribution was prior art, the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 14.
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, 6–10, 15–17, 19, and 21–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramonian, Lim (US 2020/0413069 A1), and Bross et al., “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 8),” JVET-Q2001-vE, 17th Meeting: Brussels, BE Janurary 2020 (herein “Bross”).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Ramasubramonian, Lim, and Bross teaches or suggests a method of processing video data, comprising: determining, for a conversion between a chroma block of a video and a bitstream of the video, a prediction mode is applied to the chroma block, wherein in the prediction mode, prediction samples of the chroma block are derived based on collocated luma samples of chroma samples in the chroma block and a cross-component linear model (Examiner notes this limitation is claiming prior art CCLM coding mode; In CCLM, a linear relationship between luma samples and chroma samples of neighboring blocks is determined and that relationship is used to code the chroma samples of the current block from the luma samples of the current block; Ramasubramonian, ¶¶ 0072–0074: describes the prior art CCLM process of predicting the chroma block based on downsampled luma samples, the downsampling depending on chroma format (e.g. 4:2:0, 4:2:2, or 4:4:4)); and performing the conversion based on the determining (Examiner notes this Applicant says “conversion” to mean video coding, thus the claim is merely saying that video coding is accomplished based on CCLM being a coding mode), wherein three rows of luma samples neighboring a top of a collocated luma block of the chroma block are used to derive down-sampled neighboring top luma samples (Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0077: teaches the neighboring reconstructed luma samples used in CCLM can be one or more rows adjacent a top row of a current block or equivalently along the left edge of the current block; see Ramasubramonian, Figs. 5 and 6; see also Bross, before page 1, Editors Notes for Draft 7: “Incorporated JVET-P0418: Modifying MRL to use the same 3 reference lines as CCLM”) in response to one variable being equal to a first value, and a first row luma samples of the collocated luma block are used to derive the down-sampled neighboring top luma samples in response to the one variable being equal to a second value (Lim, ¶¶ 0279, 0290, 0299, and 0300: teach that multiple reference lines, including three reference lines, can be used for intra-prediction modes; Lim, ¶¶ 0311–0312: teaches that availability or location at a CTU boundary are conditions when there would be less than 3 reference lines; Lim, ¶ 0282: teaches the variable, mrl_index, which can be used to indicate whether the first row only or three rows can be used for prediction; It is noted that Lim’s ¶ 0282 explains that the lines need not be consecutive such that an index of 0 could indicate only the adjacent line and an index of 1 could indicate 3 lines, i.e. the index can skip indicating 2 lines); and wherein the down-sampled neighboring top luma samples are used to derive one or more parameters of the cross-component linear model (Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0074: teaches the downsampled luma samples “are used to derive the parameters (alpha and beta) of the prediction model…”), wherein in case that a chroma collocated flag is equal to 0, the chroma block is not at a top coding tree unit boundary and the chroma block has a color format of 4:2:0 (Examiner interprets the variable to be the prior art sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag as Applicant describes in paragraph [0213] and [0285] of Applicant’s published Specification; In those paragraphs, Applicant admits Bross’s flag and use of the flag achieves the claimed operation; Bross, pg. 42: teaches the variable sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag is set to true when the chroma format is 4:2:0; Bross, pg. 107: teaches the flag means that chroma samples are not shifted vertically with respect to their luma samples; Bross, pg. 209: teaches the flag is used in the CCLM process to determine how downsampled luma samples are derived using a certain downsample filter; Bross, pg. 212: teaches the CCLM process uses the recited flag; Lim, ¶¶ 0311–0312: teaches that availability or location at a CTU boundary are conditions when there would be less than 3 reference lines; Lim, ¶¶ 0565–0568: teach that the color format is taken into account to determine whether and how a luma block would be downsampled to match the size of the chroma block being predicted; Likewise, Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0101: teaches the number of reference lines may be constrained if the luma reference samples cross CTU boundaries; Bross, Section 8.4.5.2.13, page 207: explains the CCLM process starts with the current location of the luma block and is derived using the SubWidthC and SubHeightC parameters, which Bross’s Table 2, page 19 explains is determined based on color format of the chroma block chroma_format_idc; Bross, page 20: combines all three of the claimed constraints together; i.e. a decision tree is depicted just below expression numbered (375) in which Bross teaches the use of the sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag, then the bCTUboundary constraint, and finally explains the selected(Sel), downsampled (Ds), luma component (Y) samples pSelDsY[idx] is determined according to such constraints; The three reference lines are part of the reference sample availability marking process (8.4.5.2.7), the reference sample substitution process (8.4.5.2.8), and the reference sample filtering process (8.4.5.2.9) as described in Bross and the filtering reference samples, as the result of those processes, is p[ x ][ y ], which is passed to the CCLM function (Bross, pgs. 199–201)), (pY[ SubWidthC * x – 1 ][ –1] + pY[ SubWidthC * x – 1 ][ –2 ] + 2* pY[ SubWidthC * x ][ –1 ] + 2* pY[ SubWidthC * x ][ –2 ] + pY[ SubWidthC * x + 1 ][ –1 ] + pY[ SubWidthC * x + 1 ][ –2 ] + 4 ) >> 3 are used to derive at least one of downsampled neighbouring top luma samples, wherein pY[ SubWidthC * x – 1 ][ –1], pY[ SubWidthC * x – 1 ][ –2 ], pY[ SubWidthC * x ][ –1 ], pY[ SubWidthC * x ][ –2 ], pY[ SubWidthC * x + 1 ][ –1 ] and pY[ SubWidthC * x + 1 ][ –2 ] denote luma samples from neighboring lines of the collocated luma block, and wherein x is an integer and SubWidthC is equal to 2 in case that the chroma block has a color format of 4:2:0 (Bross, pg. 210, Expression (378): teaches, for sps_chroma_vertical_collocated_flag equal to 0, the same expressions as recited herein; see also supra; Bross, Section 8.4.5.2.13, page 207: explains the CCLM process starts with the current location of the luma block and is derived using the SubWidthC and SubHeightC parameters, which Bross’s Table 2, page 19 explains is determined based on color format of the chroma block chroma_format_idc).
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 Ramasubramonian, with those of Lim, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one endeavoring to practice the art of CCLM in video coding would be led to their teachings to construct a CCLM algorithm utilizing the features of both references and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements (those disclosed in the references), according to known methods (adjusting coding algorithms is a straightforward process of modifying the software code to implement the calculation or constraint), to yield a predictable result (a more efficient or more robust coding tool used in the video compression standard). This rationale applies to all combinations of Ramasubramonian and Lim used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
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 Lim and Ramasubramonian, with those of Bross, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one endeavoring to practice the art of CCLM in video coding would be led to their teachings to construct a CCLM algorithm utilizing the features of each of the references and because such a combination represents a mere combination of prior art elements (those disclosed in the references), according to known methods (adjusting coding algorithms is a straightforward process of modifying the software code to implement the calculation or constraint), to yield a predictable result (a more efficient or more robust coding tool used in the video compression standard). This rationale applies to all combinations of Ramasubramonian, Lim, and Bross used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ramasubramonian, Lim, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more parameters of the cross-component linear model are derived further based on down-sampled neighboring left luma samples, selected neighbouring top chroma samples and selected neighbouring left chroma samples, and wherein the down-sampled neighboring top luma samples and the selected neighbouring top chroma samples are obtained before the down-sampled neighboring left luma samples and the selected neighbouring left chroma samples (Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0074: teaches that, in CCLM, the neighboring downsampled luma samples and neighboring chroma samples from the top and left neighboring blocks are used to derive the linear parameters; Examiner finds deriving the top samples before the left samples is obvious principally in view of the fact that the prior art expresses no preference and because there is a universe of only two possibilities such that one would have been motivated to try either order; Examiner’s finding that top samples are evaluated before left samples is further supported by both Ramasubramonian and Bross; Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0126: discussed the above evaluations before the left evaluations as a rule of thumb; Bross, Section 8.4.5.2.13, pgs. 207–209: teaches INTRA_T_CCLM before INTRA_L_CCLM and teaches for INTRA_LT_CCLM first evaluating the number of top samples before evaluating the number of left samples).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ramasubramonian, Lim, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 6, wherein the one or more parameters of the cross-component linear model are derived based on four down-sampled neighboring luma samples and four selected neighbouring chroma samples, wherein the four down-sampled neighboring luma samples comprise at least one of the down-sampled neighboring top luma samples and the down-sampled neighboring left luma samples, and wherein the four selected neighbouring chroma samples comprise at least one of the selected neighbouring top chroma samples and the selected neighbouring chroma left samples (Bross, before page 1, Editors Notes for Draft 5: “Incorporated JVET-N0271: CCLM derived from four neighbouring samples”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ramasubramonian, Lim, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes encoding the video into the bitstream (Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0002).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ramasubramonian, Lim, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion includes decoding the video from the bitstream (Ramasubramonian, ¶ 0002).
Claim 10 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 15 lists the same elements as claim 6, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 16 lists the same elements as claim 7, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 17 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to a CRM rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists essentially the same elements as claim 1. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 21 lists the same elements as claim 6, but is drawn to a CRM rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 22 lists the same elements as claim 7, but is drawn to a CRM rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 23 lists essentially the same elements as claim 6. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 6 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 24 lists essentially the same elements as claim 7. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 7 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al, “Non-CE3: Multiple reference sample set for CCLM,” JVET-P0500, 16th Meeting: Geneva, CH, October 2019. This document teaches it was prior art to have four samples of chroma and four samples of downsampled luma to calculate the linear model parameters (both in Sections 1 and 2).
Tsai et al., “Cleanup for checking CTU row boundary location in CCLM,” JVET-Q0194-v1, 17th Meeting: Brussels, BE January 2020. This document teaches that only 4:2:0 was supported before Draft 7 of the Versatile Video Coding standard and that later 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 formats required different filtering processes for the luma samples.
Aono (US 2020/0213619 A1) teaches CCLM and constraints based on crossing CTU boundaries (e.g. ¶ 0189).
Lim (US 2022/0109846 A1) teaches the available reference lines for CCLM can be limited to three reference lines, from index 0 to 2 (¶ 0538).
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