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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 10, 19-25 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection. After further reevaluation of the prior art, the examiner believes that certain area of the prior art is applicable to the claims and at least implicitly disclosed. However, the examiner has attempted to provide additionally prior art the teaches the amended claim language.
Comments and Suggestions
As stated in the interview held on December 9, 2025, that the pro it is the Examiner’s position that Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which define the operation and apparatus of Applicant’s disclosed invention in manner, which distinguishes over the prior art. As it is Applicant’s right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention. It is also the Examiner’s right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner’s position that the detailed functionality that allows for Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique (see Applicant’s enabling portions of the specification (see pages 204-209) as well as previous objected claims that may provide greater detail and distinguishing features). As it is extremely well known in the art as already shown by prior art utilized in the rejection as well as other prior art or records disclosed. Thus, it is clear that Applicant must submit amendments to the claims in order to distinguish over the prior art use in the rejection that discloses different features of Applicant’s claim invention.
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, 10 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 20230047271 A1, Chubach et al., (Chubach), in view of US PGPUB 20200154118 A1, Yang et al., (Yang) in further view of Pang et al. (Pang), US 20160337661 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Chubach discloses the invention substantially as claimed. An encoder (Fig. 1) comprising: circuitry (Processing unites, GPU, Fig. 11, para. 0089); and memory (Fig. 11, system memory, ROM, Storage device, para. 0089) coupled to the circuitry (Fig. 11, item 1100, electronic system, para. 0089), wherein in operation, the circuitry, in operation, performs a first resampling process that changes a resolution of a first image, corresponding to either an image to be encoded or a reference image for the image to be encoded (see Chubach, para. 0035, performing down-sampling coding, i.e., encoding video at a lower resolution (down-sampled version) instead of encoding the video at the original resolution). However, Chubach does not explicitly disclose the first image is represented in a color space that includes a luma component and chroma components and in the first resampling process, the circuitry changes the resolution of the luma component and retains each resolution of the chroma components and the resulting resolution of the luma component is different from reach resolution of the chroma components.
But, in the same field of endeavor, Yang, discloses the first image is represented in a color space that includes a luma component and chroma components (see Yang, 0082 In one embodiment, color information of the to-be-processed image block is represented by using YCbCr color space, where Y represents luma, which is also referred to as a luma component; Cb and Cr represent chroma, and are used to represent a hue and saturation of a pixel, and Cb and Cr are collectively referred to as a chroma component. In this case, the luma Y is established by using input signals RGB (red, green, and blue), and a method is superposing the RGB signals together according to a specific proportion; Cb represents a difference between the blue part of the input RGB signals and a signal luma value, and Cr represents a difference between the red part of the input RGB signals and a signal luma value.), and in the first resampling process, the circuitry changes the resolution of the luma component and retains each resolution of the chroma components (Yang, paras. 0017-0020, 0092, 0093, 0105, 0176; Yang discloses in one embodiment, the second processing information is used to indicate a downsampling processing manner used for a chroma component of the to-be-processed image block includes: the second processing information is used to indicate that downsampling is not performed on the chroma component of the to-be-processed image block; or the second processing information is used to indicate a filter that performs downsampling on the chroma component of the to-be-processed image block. Furthermore, Yang discloses determining the resolution of the transient chroma block based on the sampling format of the to-be-processed image block and the second processing information; when the resolution of the transient chroma block is different from the resolution of the transient luma block, adjusting the resolution of the transient luma block, so that resolution of the adjusted transient luma block is the same as the resolution of the transient chroma block, and using the adjusted transient luma block as a target block of the transient chroma block, or when the resolution of the transient chroma block is the same as the resolution of the transient luma block, maintaining the resolution of the transient luma block, and using the transient luma block as a target block of the transient chroma block; and obtaining the prediction block of the transient chroma block based on the target block of the transient chroma block).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated Yang’s teachings of Chroma prediction method and device with the teachings of Chubach for the purpose of improving accuracy of the chroma prediction in the video encoding/decoding process and to improve the quality of the reconstructed image (Yang, para.0004). However, Chubach-Yang does not explicitly disclose and the resulting resolution of the lima component is different from reach resolution of the chroma components.
But, in the same field of endeavor, Pang discloses and the resulting resolution of the luma component is different from reach resolution of the chroma components (Pang, [0105] In some examples, due to the derivation of the chroma motion vector from the luma motion vector, the resolution used for the luma motion vector may be different than the resolution used for the chroma motion vector. For instance, in some examples, the luma motion vector may have integer-pixel resolution and the chroma motion vector may have fractional-pixel resolution. As such, in accordance with one more techniques of this disclosure, motion estimation unit 44 may determine the size of the search region based on the resolution to be used for the chroma motion vector. For instance, when the resolution to be used for the chroma motion vector is integer-pixel, motion estimation unit 44 may select the predictor block from within an initial search region that includes a reconstructed region of the current picture. As another example, when the resolution to be used for the chroma motion vector is fractional-pixel, motion estimation unit 44 may select the predictor block from within a reduced search region that is smaller than the initial search region used when the resolution of the chroma motion vector is inter-pixel. In this way, motion estimation unit 44 may ensure that all sample pixel values needed to construct the predictor block, including sample chroma pixel values located outside the predictor block, are available for use when coding the current block based on the predictor block.h.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated Pang teachings of a method of encoding video data that includes determining a resolution that will be used for a motion vector with the teachings of Chubach-Yang.
Regarding claim 19, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise. Therefore, regarding claim 19, Chubach-Yang and Pang meets the claim limitations as set forth in claim 1. Please, refer to mapping, explanation and pertinence of prior art reference given in claim 1; Note: current claim may contain different terminology or additional claim terms compared to the claim(s) that are referred claim(s) to meet the claim limitations of current claim. However, explanation and pertinence of prior art of reference provided in the referred claim(s) would address any differing claim limitations. Therefore, explanation and pertinence of prior art of reference are not duplicated, and applicant is requested to refer to explanation and pertinence of prior art reference provided in the referred claim|(s).
Regarding claim 10, 20 and 21, the claim(s) recites decoder limitations, Chubach-Yang and Pang discloses a decoder i.e. Fig. 5 and associated text, Para 0050, which 1s inverse of the encoder, thereby claim 10, 20 and 21 are analogous limitations to claims 1 and 19 above, respectively, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise. Therefore, regarding claim 10, 20 and 21, Chubach meets the claim limitations as set forth in claims 1 and 19, respectively. Please refer to mapping, explanation and pertinence of prior art reference given in claims 1 and 19, respectively; Note: current claim may contain different terminology or additional claim terms compared to the claim(s) that are referred claim(s) to meet the claim limitations of current claim. However, explanation and pertinence of prior art of reference provided in the referred claim(s) would address any differing claim limitations. Therefore, explanation and pertinence of prior art of reference are not duplicated, and applicant is requested to refer to explanation and pertinence of prior art reference provided in the referred claim(s).
Regarding claim 22, Chubach-Yang and Pang discloses The encoder according to claim 1, wherein the first image is a picture, and the first resampling process is performed over an entirety of the picture (see Chubach, abstract, 0051).
Regarding claim 23, Chubach-Yang and Pang discloses The encoder according to claim 1, wherein the circuity generates a bitstream, the generation includes the first resampling process, and the circuity outputs the bitstream to a network (Yang, 0178).
Regarding claim 24, Chubach-Yang and Pang discloses The decoder according to claim 10, wherein the first image is a picture, and the first resampling process is performed over an entirety of the picture (see Chubach, abstract, 0051).
Regarding claim 25, Chubach-Yang and Pang discloses The decoder according to claim 10, wherein the circuity receives a bitstream from a network, the circuity decodes the bitstream, the decoding includes the first resampling process (Yang, 0178).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
/WILLIAM C VAUGHN JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights