DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 10/14/2025 in which no claims are cancelled, no claims are amended, and no claims are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
On page 3 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the teachings of Marpe are deficient because treats luma and chroma prediction as independent processes and because “Marpe refines chroma independently from luma.” Applicant fails to address the rationale of the rejection which relies on the teachings of the combination of references. The rejection relies on the teachings of Marpe which teaches, “the predictors of the chroma PU are also derived from the luma PU” and further teaches, “the predictors of chroma are not found through direct template matching but calculated from that of the corresponding luma block.” From these teachings of Marpe, Applicant’s feature of determining chroma blocks (i.e. chroma refinement areas) from the luma displacement vector is taught. Marpe goes on to teach that after the luma displacement vector is used to preliminarily define the chroma channel prediction, this initial prediction is refined using scaling to arrive at a final prediction. Supplementing this idea of a final prediction from an initial prediction using scaling, Chen teaches, for locating the chroma reference patch, using a refined search around the area indicated by the luma vector. The combination of Marpe and Chen, then, teaches refining an initial prediction derived from a luma displacement vector for the chroma block. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach or suggest the features of the claims are unpersuasive of error.
On page 3 of the Remarks, Applicant contends there are disadvantages to applying luma template matching to chroma prediction. This argument is unpersuasive because Applicant’s claims also suffer these same disadvantages since the claims require the luma displacement vector derived from template matching to be used for identifying the chroma refinement area.
On page 4 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Chen is deficient because it addresses chroma motion vectors instead of chroma displacement vectors. In this art, whether the displacement vector is a temporal vector (inter prediction) or a spatial vector (intra prediction) is not limiting. Indeed, the well-known CPR/IBC (current picture referencing/Intra-block copy) coding tool is a recognition that motion vectors within a single picture are basically the same as motion vectors across temporal frames. For these reasons, Chen’s discussion of motion vectors is not contrary to a displacement vector as Applicant avers. Accordingly, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are sustained.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 4.
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 29–48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal et al., “Intra Region-based Template Matching,” JVET-J0039, 10th Meeting: San Diego, April 2018, Marpe et al., “CE8 related: Intra Region-based Template Matching for luma and chroma,” JVET-K0050-v1, 11th Meeting: Ljubljana, July 2018 and Chen (US 2017/0302929 A1).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Venugopal, Marpe, and Chen teaches or suggests a method comprising, for a current block of picture information comprising a luma block and at least one chroma block: determining a displacement vector based on a distance between a selected luma block and a current luma block (Examiner notes this feature is interpreted in view of Applicant’s published paragraph [0007] in which it is explained the displacement vector is the result of template matching; Venugopal, Abstract and Section 1: teaches a template matching approach for determining a displacement vector between the current block and a prediction block from already decoded blocks in the same picture; Venugopal, Section 2.1: teaches the template matching is for luma); determining Cb and Cr chroma refinement areas respectively in partially decoded Cb and Cr chroma picture information based on the displacement vector (Marpe, Section 1: teaches determining the prediction of the chroma blocks based on the corresponding luma prediction); selecting a Cb chroma block by applying a template matching process in the Cb chroma refinement area (Marpe, Section 1: teaches the final prediction for the chroma block “is generated in the same way as that of luma,” which determines a best template matching score within a search region; Examiner notes the region was already picked by the encoder for the luma block such that only a sub-portion of the available regions is necessary to be subjected to template matching; Examiner further notes that full template matching is suggested by Marpe but that Marpe decides, as a design choice, that decoder resources can be advantageously saved by not subjecting chroma to full template matching when the decisions about the luma block can be borrowed to speed up chroma processing; While Marpe’s teachings may not explicitly teach that which is obvious, Chen more clearly teaches what the skilled artisan would understand about predicting the chroma from the luma; Chen, ¶ 0118: teaches either using scaled motion vectors indicating a luma reference patch directly for locating the chroma reference patch without performing a chroma search or using a refined search around the area indicated by the scaled luma vector); selecting a Cr chroma block by applying a template matching prediction in the Cr chroma refinement area (see previous with respect to Cb; The skilled artisan would be led to use the same process for both chroma channels); and determining a prediction block for the current block based on samples of the selected luma, Cb chroma and Cr chroma blocks (Marpe, Section 1: teaches prediction units are determined for luma and chroma channels).
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 Venugopal, with those of Marpe, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice current picture referencing using template matching would have been led to their relevant teachings, because both references have common authorship, and because Marpe literally references Venugopal’s work as extending the teachings to chroma channels. Thus, 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 Venugopal and Marpe 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 Venugopal and Marpe, with those of Chen, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice current picture referencing using template matching would have been led to their relevant teachings, and because the skilled artisan understands current picture referencing using displacement vectors is really the same as motion prediction using motion vectors such that the skilled artisan would be led to use the refinement search for chroma used in motion compensation for the purposes of intra-prediction using templates. Thus, 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 Venugopal, Marpe, and Chen used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Venugopal, Marpe, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 29, wherein the selected luma block is selected in an area of partially decoded picture information based on a template matching process comprising a comparison of a template associated with the current block to at least one other template associated with at least one other block in an area of decoded picture information, wherein the template matching process is applied on luma components (Venugopal, Fig. 1: illustrates the template matching process compares the template area of the current block to the template area of already-decoded portions of the current picture; Venugopal, Section 2.1: teaches template matching is for luma).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Venugopal, Marpe, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 29, wherein the prediction block is determined by copying samples of the selected blocks (Examiner notes current picture referencing (CPR) is synonymous in the art with intra-block copy; Venugopal, Section 1: explains the already-coded block is copied for use as a prediction block for the current block).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Venugopal, Marpe, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 29, further comprising decoding the current block based on the prediction block (Chen, ¶ 0037: teaches this very basic concept in teaching the purpose of intra- or inter-prediction is encoding a current block; The skilled artisan understands the benefit of encoding is that the current block can later be decoded at the decoder).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Venugopal, Marpe, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 29, further comprising encoding the current block based on the prediction block in a data content, wherein the data content comprises information indicating to use a template matching prediction process for the current block (Venugopal, Section 1: teaches the encoder transmits information to the decoder for indicating the use of template matching and where to search; see also Venugopal, Section 3: teaching the bitstream having indications of the use of the RTM tool).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Venugopal, Marpe, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 29, further comprising encoding the current block, based on the prediction block, in a data content, wherein the data content comprises first information indicating to use a first template matching prediction process for the current luma block and second information indicating to use a second template matching prediction process for current chroma blocks (Marpe, Section 1: teaches the final prediction for the chroma block “is generated in the same way as that of luma,” which determines a best template matching score within a search region; Examiner notes the region was already picked by the encoder for the luma block such that only a sub-portion of the available regions is necessary to be subjected to template matching; Examiner further notes that full template matching is suggested by Marpe but that Marpe decides, as a design choice, that decoder resources can be advantageously saved by not subjecting chroma to full template matching when the decisions about the luma block can be borrowed to speed up chroma processing; While Marpe’s teachings may not explicitly teach that which is obvious, Chen more clearly teaches what the skilled artisan would understand about predicting the chroma from the luma; Chen, ¶ 0118: teaches either using scaled motion vectors indicating a luma reference patch directly for locating the chroma reference patch without performing a chroma search or using a refined search around the area indicated by the scaled luma vector; In other words, the prior art, as a whole, teaches an independent search for chroma, no search for chroma, and a refinement search for chroma; Given such a teaching, the skilled artisan would understand the need to signal the approach to the decoder).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Venugopal, Marpe, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 34, wherein the second information is signaled only when the first information indicates to use template matching prediction process for the current luma block (Examiner finds it obvious that if the intra-template maching tool is not used, there would be no need to further signal the type of chroma search based on the luma search; see treatment of claim 34).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Venugopal, Marpe, and Chen teaches or suggests the method of claim 34, wherein the current block has a top and a left side, and wherein the template associated with the current block comprises a set of pixels forming a L-shape at the top and at the left side of the current block (Venugopal, Fig. 1: illustrates the template is the L-shaped top and left side of the blocks).
Claim 37 lists the same elements as claim 29, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 29 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 38 lists the same elements as claim 30, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 30 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 39 lists the same elements as claim 31, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 31 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 40 lists the same elements as claim 32, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 32 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 41 lists the same elements as claim 33, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 33 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 42 lists the same elements as claim 34, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 34 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 43 lists the same elements as claim 35, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 35 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 44 lists the same elements as claim 36, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 36 applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Venugopal, Marpe, and Chen teaches or suggests the apparatus of claim 37, wherein the apparatus is one of a television, a television signal receiver, a set-top box, a gateway device, a mobile device, a cell phone, a tablet, a computer, a laptop, or other electronic device (The skilled artisan knows that video coding is advantageous for such listed devices since they are conventionally used for receiving video bitstreams; see e.g. Chen, ¶ 0047: teaching video compression is used for sending a video bitstream to a display device “and the like”).
Claim 46 lists the same elements as claim 29, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 29 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 47 lists the same elements as claim 30, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 30 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 48 lists the same elements as claim 31, but in CRM form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 31 applies to the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sethuraman (US 2021/0329257 A1) teaches that while only luma samples are predicted for DMVR, chroma is also subjected to prediction and refinement by suitably scaling the chroma predictions due to chroma downsampling (¶ 0018).
Lai (US 2018/0359486 A1) teaches refining motion vectors for chroma instead of directly reusing luma motion vectors within a refinement range (¶ 0110).
Chen (US 2020/0128258 A1) teaches a template refinement process that directly uses the vector of the luma component with chroma scaling to account for chroma color sampling (¶ 0015).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 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 571-273-8933.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 2481