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 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.
Claims 1, 6-9, 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang, US 2017/0359595 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses: a method for decoding video data, comprising:
obtaining a plurality of luma samples of a coding block (See figure 14, as disclosed in [0133] luma samples “a” from a current block are used in conjunction with luma samples “b” of previously coded neighbors (above and left), wherein the plurality of luma samples includes a luma sample corresponding to a boundary luma location adjacent to a boundary of the coding block (See figure 14, certain of luma pixels “a” are boundary pixels inside the current block.) or to an extension of the boundary;
in response to determining that one or more neighboring luma samples of the coding block are not available, assigning the luma sample corresponding to the boundary luma location to the one or more neighboring luma samples (See [0148], where padding of luma samples outside of a current block is disclosed.), wherein each of the one or more neighboring luma samples corresponding to a neighboring luma location being outside the coding block and close to the boundary luma location;
determining a boundary luma sample based, at least, on the one or more neighboring luma samples and the luma sample corresponding to the boundary luma location according to a predefined luma interpolation scheme (See [0160], disclosing downsampling a padded luma block based on the luma block’s being on a block boundary.); and
determining a boundary chroma sample from the boundary luma sample according to
a linear mapping model (See Linear mapping mode “LM mode”, as disclosed in [0067], [0080], for determining chroma samples from downsampled luma samples.).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the predefined luma interpolation scheme is determined based on at least one of a subsampling scheme corresponding (Zhang discloses downsampling luma samples to predict a nearby chroma sample, as disclosed in [0083].) to the plurality of pixels and a syntax element derived from the bitstream.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more neighboring pixels of the boundary pixel are external to the video frame or an image slice (See [0120], disclosing an example in which a luma reference line for chroma linear mapping prediction is not available, because it is for instance “out of picture boundary”).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pixels includes a first set of pixels that are entirely enclosed in the coding block (See [0033], “video coder may determine values for LM parameters using a line of luma samples in an already coded block that is at least one line removed from a border line.”), the method further comprising:
determining an internal luma sample from a set of luma samples corresponding to the first set of pixels according to the predefined luma interpolation scheme (See [0117], disclosing using a six-tap filter to derive a downsampled luma value.); and
determining an internal chroma sample corresponding to the first set of pixels based on the internal luma sample according to the linear mapping model (See step 314 in figure 19.).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein:
the plurality of pixels further includes an internal pixel that is inside the coding block and corresponds to an internal luma sample (See luma samples “a” of figure 14-16, as disclosed in [0134], which are internal to a current block.); and
the boundary luma sample is determined based on both the internal luma sample of the
internal pixel and the luma samples of the one or more neighboring pixels and the boundary pixel according to the predefined luma interpolation scheme (As disclosed in [0080]-[0087]a linear mapping mode uses parameters alpha and beta derived from samples around the current block, which in the case of a boundary pixel, is based on both samples internal to the current block, and based on samples from a surround neighbor block (e.g. figures 14-16).).
Regarding claim 12, Zhang discloses: the method of claim 3, wherein in accordance with a subsampling scheme, luma samples and chroma samples of the plurality of pixels comply with a three-part Y'CbCr ratio having one of the following ratio values:
(1) 4: 1: 1 in which every four horizontal pixels correspond to four luma samples, one
blue-difference chroma sample Cb and one red-difference chroma sample Cr;
(2) 4:2:0 in which every four pixels in each 2x2 pixel block correspond to four luma
samples, a blue-difference chroma samples Cb and a red-difference chroma sample (See [0062]-[0063] in Zhang.);
(3) 4:2:2 in which every four pixels correspond to four luma samples, two blue-difference chroma samples Cb and two red-difference chroma samples Cr (See Zhang [0031].); and
(4) 4:4:4 in which every four pixels correspond to four luma samples, four blue-difference chroma samples Cb and four red-difference chroma samples Cr.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein in accordance with the predefined luma interpolation scheme, six luma samples in a 2x3 sub-array are down-sampled to an alternative luma sample, and at least two luma samples in each of left and right columns in the 2x3 array are used to generate the alternative luma sample. (See [0117], 6-tap filter.).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining, from the bitstream, a second plurality of luma samples and a second plurality of chroma samples (See [0185]);
determining an alternative plurality of luma samples having the same resolution as the plurality of chroma samples according to the predefined luma interpolation scheme (See [0185], discloses a 4:4:4 sampling format, according to which format chroma samples have the same vertical and horizontal frequency as luma samples.); and
deriving a first parameter alpha and a second parameter β for the linear mapping model by using the alternative plurality of luma samples and the second plurality of chroma samples (See [0060] disclosing a two-tap bilinear interpolation filter for intra prediction at a fractional pixel location.).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses: the method of claim 1, wherein the boundary chroma sample Y is determined from the boundary luma sample X according to the linear mapping model as follows that is described using the following equation: Y = α * X + β (See [0106] in Zhang, disclosing a linear mapping for cross component prediction of chroma samples from luma samples within a same block.)
Video decoding device claims 17-19 are drawn to an apparatus implementing the corresponding method claimed in claims 1-3, respectively. Therefore, apparatus claims 17-19 correspond to method claims 1-3 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as given above.
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream. This claim is directed to a product-by-process (bitstream product by a decoding method as claimed). However, the claim as a whole merely serves as support for the claimed data, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a bitstream”, in which no functional relationship exists. Therefore, the claim is rejected as being anticipated by Zhang’s broad disclosure of a computer-readable storage medium storing a bitstream, as in [0050]. See MPEP 2111.05.III.
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.
Claims 2-5, 10, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, in view of Lim, US 2022/0295056 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 2. Zhang does not disclose: the method of claim 1, wherein the neighboring luma location comprises a top neighboring luma location, the top neighboring luma location comprises a location right to the top of the coding block, and/or a first upper left location to an upper left of the coding block.
Lim discloses this feature in an analogous art. See [0204], which discloses padding an unavailable neighboring pixel sample position adjacent to the top of a current luma sample using a reconstructed sample in the uppermost (top) row in the current luma block.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature, disclosed in Lim, of padding individual unavailable luma samples at locations adjacent to a boundary, either left, or top, of a current luma block, with a luma sample value located within the current block at the boundary of the missing sample, as disclosed in Lim. As disclosed in the context of CCLM (Cross-component linear model), for chroma prediction, this same neighboring sample padding across a block boundary could be applied for luma-to-luma padding, in order to provide luma pixel values for cross-component chroma prediction at the neighboring location. The combination of these elements would improve coding efficiency and would have had predictable results for one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.I.E. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 3. Zhang does not disclose: the method of claim 1, wherein the neighboring luma location comprises a left neighboring luma location, the left neighboring luma location comprises a location straight to
the left of the coding block and/or a second upper left location to an upper left of the coding
block.
Lim discloses this feature in an analogous art. See [0204], which discloses padding an unavailable neighboring pixel sample position adjacent to the left of a current luma sample using a reconstructed sample in the left row in the current luma block.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the Applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate the feature, disclosed in Lim, of padding individual unavailable luma samples at locations adjacent to a boundary, either left, or top, of a current luma block, with a luma sample value located within the current block at the boundary of the missing sample, as disclosed in Lim. As disclosed in the context of CCLM (Cross-component linear model), for chroma prediction, this same neighboring sample padding across a block boundary could be applied for luma-to-luma padding, in order to provide luma pixel values for cross-component chroma prediction at the neighboring location. The combination of these elements would improve coding efficiency and would have had predictable results for one having ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.I.E. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Zhang in view of Lim discloses the limitations of claim 2, upon which depends claim 4. This combination, specifically Lim, further discloses: the method of claim 2, wherein the boundary luma location is inside the coding block and is adjacent to a top boundary of the coding block, or the boundary luma location is inside a left neighboring coding block and is adjacent to a left extension of the top boundary (See Lim [0204], “when top neighboring samples adjacent to the top of a luma block are unavailable, reconstructed sample included in the uppermost row in a luma block may be padded to the top.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhang in view of Lim discloses the limitations of claim 3, upon which depends claim 5. This combination, specifically Lim, further discloses: the method of claim 3, wherein the boundary luma location is inside the coding block and is adjacent to a left boundary of the coding block, or the boundary luma location is inside a top neighboring coding block and is adjacent to an upper extension of the left boundary (See Lim [0204]: “For example, when left neighboring samples adjacent to the left of a luma block are unavailable, reconstructed samples included in the leftmost column in a luma block may be padded to the left.”).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose: the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more neighboring pixels includes only one neighboring pixel that is on an opposite side of the boundary with respect to the boundary pixel and has the corresponding luma sample assigned from the luma sample corresponding to the boundary pixel.
However, Lim discloses in an analogous art using a cross-shaped filter in certain instances for boundary pixels, such as boundary pixel positions C and D in figure 9. When the cross-shaped filter is used for these pixel locations, only one of a left (for C position) or right (D position) neighboring luma pixels with respect to the boundary pixel is used in the downsampling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to use a cross-shaped filter as the downsampling filter in Zhang, as disclosed in Lim, in order to obtain an optimally accurate chroma prediction use of symmetrically surrounding luma samples. Lim discloses using such a cross filter in the context of cross-component chroma prediction (See [0185]), and incorporating such a filter into Zhang would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Zhang and in Lim, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 11. Zhang does not disclose: the method of claim 1, wherein: the boundary includes a first boundary;
the boundary pixel is immediately adjacent to a corner of the coding block formed between the first boundary and a second boundary perpendicular to the first boundary;
the one or more neighboring pixels includes a first neighboring pixel that is on an opposite side of the first boundary with respect to the boundary pixel, and at least one of (1) a second neighboring pixel that is on an opposite side of the second boundary with respect to the boundary pixel and (2) a third neighboring pixel that opposes the boundary pixel over the corner of the coding block.
However, Lim discloses these limitations in an analogous art:
the boundary pixel is immediately adjacent to a corner of the coding block formed between the first boundary and a second boundary perpendicular to the first boundary (See figure 9, noting the position of chroma sample A in the example block, namely top-left.)
the one or more neighboring pixels includes a first neighboring pixel that is on an opposite side of the first boundary with respect to the boundary pixel (A left pixel C, specifically a bottom-left, as shown in figure 10, may use the 6 tap filter (“AvailL= Yes”), in which case a luma pixel will be drawn from the left of the boundary.), and at least one of (1) a second neighboring pixel that is on an opposite side of the second boundary with respect to the boundary pixel (Bottom of the boundary, below the bottom-most C pixel in figure 10.)and (2) a third neighboring pixel that opposes the boundary pixel over the corner of the coding block (From a bottom-left corner, diagonal to the bottom-most C pixel in figure 10.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to incorporate downsampling filters for chroma prediction that draw from pixel samples left, below left across a block boundary, and below a current sample being predicted, as disclosed in Lim, figure 10, in order to improve the accuracy of chroma prediction. Incorporation of the filter disclosed in Lim would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Zhang and in Lim, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses the limitations of claim 1, upon which depends claim 14. Zhang does not disclose:
the method of claim 1, wherein in accordance with the predefined luma interpolation scheme, five luma samples are down-sampled to an alternative luma sample and arranged in a cross-shaped sub-array centered at a center pixel.
However, Lim discloses, in an analogous art directed to cross-component linear models for chroma prediction, applying a cross-shaped luma downsampling filter to a luma component co-located with the chroma component targeted for prediction, as disclosed in [0180]-[0181]. Examples of such filters are shown in figure 9’s decision tree.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the applicant’s effective filing date to use a cross-shaped filter as the downsampling filter in Zhang, as disclosed in Lim, in order to obtain an optimally accurate chroma prediction use of symmetrically surrounding luma samples. Lim discloses using such a cross filter in the context of cross-component chroma prediction (See [0185]), and incorporating such a filter into Zhang would have entailed simply combining the prior art elements respectively disclosed in Zhang and in Lim, without changing their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results for one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. See 2143.1.A. 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE M LOTFI whose telephone number is (571)272-8762. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/KYLE M LOTFI/Examiner, Art Unit 2425