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 Amendment
This communication is in response to the action filed on 06/08/2026.
Claims 23-29, 34-39 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/08/2026 on pages 2-4, under REMARKS with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding independent claim 23 and related/corresponding claims applicants on page 2 state that:
PNG
media_image1.png
349
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner would like to point out that the concept/limitation argued of “an in-loop filtering process” is not explicitly claimed within the cited independent claim language and therefore is not a required component/limitation as it must be formally claimed to be considered claim language. The examiner further argues that primary prior art reference of record US 12,160,592 B2 to NA et al. discloses the application of an offset value to each reconstructed pixel based on the category. The examiner would like to point to section of NA including, abstract; figs 2-3, 7, and 15; column 8, line 47 – column 9, line 14; column 16, lines 1-22, which state regarding the computing system that the system is adapted to perform the actions of “generating reconstructed neighboring information about the chroma block, determining (applying) a scaling value and an offset value based on the (which includes pixel type/class/category information) reconstructed neighboring information about the chroma block” clearly showing an offset value is determined and applied and then the pixel is classified into two types by the CCLM, either a chroma signal or a luma signal and a Cr or Cb signal as described in column 8, lines 5-51 of NA.
The applicant goes on to further argue on page 3 stating that:
PNG
media_image2.png
380
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner again would like to point to primary reference of record NA and column 8, lines 5-51 which states “The present disclosure is directed to a prediction method according to the shape of the current block to be predicted by a predictor in the video encoding/decoding apparatus. The present disclosure relates to the Cross Component Linear Model (CCLM), which predicts a block using a correlation between channels, among various methods for generating the prediction block by predicting the current block. For example, prediction may be performed on a chroma channel using a luma channel value, or vice versa. In the case of a color image, even when the image is converted from RGB to YCbCr, redundancy remains between the luma (Y) signal and the chroma (Cb and Cr) signals. This redundancy is called cross component redundancy, and the CCLM is a linear correlation model created to model such redundancy. The CCLM may be broadly classified into two types. One type is to predict a chroma signal (or chroma) from a luma signal (or luma), and the other type is to predict a Cr signal (or Cr) from a Cb signal (or Cb) or to predict a Cb signal ( or Cb) from a Cr signal ( or Cr). First, a method for predicting chroma from luma using the CCLM will be described.”, clearly showing a plurality (more than one) of categories/types for the cross component linear model CCLM to classify the reconstructed pixel into.
The applicant finally argues in REMARKS page 3 states that:
PNG
media_image3.png
378
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner would like to site primary prior art reference NA sections column 8, line 47-column 9 line 14, and column 11, lines 3-53, and figures 2-3, and 7(a) which state as admitted by the applicant “FIG. 3 is a view showing reconstructed neighboring pixels of the current block of a square shape. In the YCbCr 4:2:0 format, the luma block undergoes down-sampling due to the difference in size between the luma block and the chroma block. FIG. 3 shows 4:2:0 format where four luma (Y) pixels correspond to one chroma (Cb or Cr) pixel. However, the present disclosure is not limited thereto, and various chroma format sampling structures such as the 4: 1: I format, 4:2:2 format, and 4:4:4 format may be used. For simplicity, the present disclosure is described based on the 4:2:0 format. Two parameters, a scaling value and an offset value are obtained using the correlation between reconstructed neighboring chroma pixel values and down-sampled reconstructed luma pixel values corresponding thereto” and further states at column 11 that “In FIG. 7, (a) shows a chroma block, and (b) shows a luma block. According to the first embodiment of the present disclosure, in Equation 1, N may be set to twice the smaller one of the width and height of the chroma block. When the width and height of the chroma block are equal to each other, N may be set to any of the width and the height. In FIG. 7, since the height of the chroma block is less than the width thereof, N is twice the height of the chroma block. In FIG. 7, samples employed for the CCLM according to the first embodiment of the present disclosure are indicated by circles. Referring to FIG. 7, since the height of the chroma block is less than the width thereof, all the reconstructed neighboring pixel values on the left side are used, while only a portion of the reconstructed neighboring pixel values on the upper side may be used through a subsampling operation. For example, only odd-numbered (or even-numbered) reconstructed pixel values among the reconstructed neighboring pixel values on the upper side of the chroma block may be used. Specifically, when the odd-numbered reconstructed neighboring pixel values are used among all the reconstructed neighboring pixel values on the upper side, the reconstructed pixel values at positions (0, 1), (0, 3), (0, 5), and (0, 7) may be used. The luma block may undergo the down-sampling operation so as to correspond to the chroma block, and then, only a part of the reconstructed neighboring pixels thereof may be used. In other words, when odd-numbered (or even-numbered) reconstructed pixel values of the reconstructed neighboring pixel values on the upper side of the chroma block are used, the corresponding four reconstructed neighboring pixels of the luma block are down-sampled using the filter of Equation 7, and then the result value from the down sampling are used for the CCLM. Specifically, when odd-numbered reconstructed pixel values (first, third, fifth, seventh pixel values) among the reconstructed neighboring pixel values on the upper side the chroma block are used, the luma block is processed by down-sampling, with the 4-tap filter of Equation 7, 4 reconstructed neighboring luma pixels (reconstructed pixels at positions (0,2), (0,3), (1 ,2), and (1,3)) corresponding to the first reconstructed neighboring pixel of the chroma block, 4 reconstructed neighboring luma pixels (reconstructed pixel at positions (0,6), (0, 7), (1 ,6), and (1,7)) corresponding to the third reconstructed neighboring pixel of the chroma block, 4 reconstructed neighboring luma pixels (reconstructed pixel at positions (0, 10), (0,11 ), (1 ,10), and (1,11)) corresponding to the fifth reconstructed neighboring pixel of the chroma block, and 4 reconstructed neighboring luma pixels (reconstructed pixel at positions ((0, 14), (0,15), (1,14), and (1,15)) corresponding to the seventh reconstructed neighboring pixel of the chroma block”, which clearly shows the number of coordinate positions provided substantially as the candidate positions would depend on the chroma format selected of the plurality of formats provided and in this case to generate the coordinate positions of the candidate positions the computing system used the format of 4:2:0, but is capable of providing specific positions for a plurality of other format types including but not limited to 4: 1: I format, 4:2:2 format, and 4:4:4 formats. Please see full rejection to the claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 23-25, 28-29, 34-35, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,160,592 B2 to NA et al. (hereinafter “NA”).
As per claim 23, NA discloses a method comprising: obtaining a reconstructed pixel of a picture (a computing system and corresponding method of operation for receiving a reconstructed pixel of a reconstructed image; abstract; figs 1-3; column 2, lines 1-54; column 6, lines 5-60; column 7, line 47 – column 8, line 59); classifying the reconstructed pixel into one category of a plurality of categories based on a value of a luma sample of the reconstructed pixel and values of chroma samples of the reconstructed pixel (classification and filtering of the pixels is performed based on a luma component, and a motion vector calculated based on the luma component is used for both the luma component and the chroma component, for example in the case of a color image, even when the image is converted from RGB to YCbCr, redundancy remains between the luma “Y” signal and the chroma “Cb and Cr” signals, cross component redundancy, and the CCLM is a linear correlation model created in order to use the CCLM to classify the reconstructed pixels into two types, one type is to predict a chroma signal from a luma signal and is classified using equation (1) of column 8, which includes a variable value for luma; fig 2; column 5, lines 5-64; column 8, lines 5-59), the value of the luma sample depending on a candidate position of the luma sample in the picture selected in a set of candidate positions (the luma value is dependent upon pixel position and changes based on pixel selected, examples are provided and include odd or even numbered reconstructed pixel values of the reconstructed neighboring pixel values on the upper side of the chroma block are used including in the example provided pixels at positions (0,2), (0,3), (1 ,2), and (1,3)) corresponding to the first reconstructed neighboring pixel of the chroma block and all would include their respective luma pixel value; figs 2 and 7; column 8, lines 5-59; column 11, lines 3-53); and, applying an offset to each sample of the reconstructed pixel based on the category in which is classified the reconstructed pixel (an offset is applied to the system of equations, the offset is applied as an offset value beta and the values are obtained using the correlation between reconstructed neighboring chroma pixel values and down-sampled reconstructed luma pixel values corresponding thereto; abstract; figs 2-3, 7, and 15; column 8, line 47 – column 9, line 14; column 16, lines 1-22), wherein: a number of candidate positions in the set of candidate positions depends on a chroma format of the picture (the candidate positions are influenced by chroma format of the input image the prior art is not limited to this configuration but uses various chroma format sampling structures such as the 4: 1: 1, format, 4:2:2 format, and 4:4:4 format may be used, which is directly related to the number of candidate positions; fig 2; column 8, line 47 – column 9, line 14).
As per claim 24, NA discloses a device comprising an electronic circuitry configured for: obtaining a reconstructed pixel of a picture (a computing system and corresponding method of operation for receiving a reconstructed pixel of a reconstructed image; abstract; figs 1-3; column 2, lines 1-54; column 6, lines 5-60; column 7, line 47 – column 8, line 59); classifying the reconstructed pixel into one category of a plurality of categories based on a value of a luma sample of the reconstructed pixel and values of chroma samples of the reconstructed pixel (classification and filtering of the pixels is performed based on a luma component, and a motion vector calculated based on the luma component is used for both the luma component and the chroma component, for example in the case of a color image, even when the image is converted from RGB to YCbCr, redundancy remains between the luma “Y” signal and the chroma “Cb and Cr” signals, cross component redundancy, and the CCLM is a linear correlation model created in order to use the CCLM to classify the reconstructed pixels into two types, one type is to predict a chroma signal from a luma signal and is classified using equation (1) of column 8, which includes a variable value for luma; fig 2; column 5, lines 5-64; column 8, lines 5-59), the value of the luma sample depending on a candidate position of the luma sample in the picture selected in a set of candidate positions the luma value is dependent upon pixel position and changes based on pixel selected, examples are provided and include odd or even numbered reconstructed pixel values of the reconstructed neighboring pixel values on the upper side of the chroma block are used including in the example provided pixels at positions (0,2), (0,3), (1 ,2), and (1,3)) corresponding to the first reconstructed neighboring pixel of the chroma block and all would include their respective luma pixel value; figs 2 and 7; column 8, lines 5-59; column 11, lines 3-53); and, applying an offset to each sample of the reconstructed pixel based on the category in which is classified the reconstructed pixel (an offset is applied to the system of equations, the offset is applied as an offset value beta and the values are obtained using the correlation between reconstructed neighboring chroma pixel values and down-sampled reconstructed luma pixel values corresponding thereto; abstract; figs 2-3, 7, and 15; column 8, line 47 – column 9, line 14; column 16, lines 1-22), wherein: a number of candidate positions in the set of candidate positions depends on a chroma format of the picture (the candidate positions are influenced by chroma format of the input image the prior art is not limited to this configuration but uses various chroma format sampling structures such as the 4: 1: 1, format, 4:2:2 format, and 4:4:4 format may be used, which is directly related to the number of candidate positions; fig 2; column 8, line 47 – column 9, line 14).
As per claim 25, NA discloses the method of claim 23, wherein the set comprises a single position when the chroma format is 4:4:4 (various chroma format sampling structures such as the 4: 1: 1, format, 4:2:2 format, and 4:4:4 format may be used; fig 2; column 8, line 47 – column 9, line 14).
As per claim 28, NA discloses an encoding method comprising the method of claim 23 (the computing system with a method of operation includes in that method of operation the steps of using an encoder component to encode image data; title; abstract; figs 1-2; column 4, lines 10-56; column 5, lines 1-38).
As per claim 29, NA discloses a decoding method comprising the method of claim 23 (the computing system with a method of operation includes in that method of operation the steps of using a decoder component to decode image data; title; abstract; figs 1-2; column 4, lines 10-56; column 5, lines 1-38).
As per claim 34, NA discloses non-transitory information storage medium storing program code instructions for implementing the method according to claim 23 (the computing system comprises memory 190 in order to store programs and instructions related to the method of operation; fig 1; column 4, lines 10-21).
As per claim 35, NA discloses the device of claim 24, wherein the set comprises a single position when the chroma format is 4:4:4 (various chroma format sampling structures such as the 4: 1: 1, format, 4:2:2 format, and 4:4:4 format may be used; fig 2; column 8, line 47 – column 9, line 14).
As per claim 38, NA discloses an encoding device comprising the device of claim 24 (the computing system includes an encoder; title; abstract; figs 1-2; column 4, lines 10-56; column 5, lines 1-38).
As per claim 39, NA discloses a decoding device comprising the device of claim 24 (the computing system includes a decoder; title; abstract; figs 1-2; column 4, lines 10-56; column 5, lines 1-38).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 27, and 37 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 12,160,592 B2 to NA et al. (hereinafter “NA”) in view of US 12,022,119 B2 to LIM et al. (hereinafter “LIM”).
As per claim 27, NA discloses the method of claim 23. NA fails to disclose wherein the number of positions in the set is a function of a ratio between a number of chroma samples in the picture and a number of luma samples in the picture.
LIM discloses wherein the number of positions in the set is a function of a ratio between a number of chroma samples in the picture and a number of luma samples in the picture (the number of positions that may be set include the shape of the feature block wherein the features include chroma and luma and are represented by variable M and N and includes the ratio of M/N to determine the positions; column 48, lines 10-50; column 49, lines 40-53; column 50, lines 4-51).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NA to have the number of positions in the set is a function of a ratio between a number of chroma samples in the picture and a number of luma samples in the picture of LIM reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to use the transform mode information which is entropy encoded/decoding selectively depending on the block size which is determined using the ratio of M/N feature blocks wherein M and N represent chroman and luma blocks respectively as suggested by column48, lines 44-50 of LIM. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine LIM with NA to obtain the invention as specified in claim 27.
As per claim 37, NA discloses the device of claim 24. NA fails to disclose wherein the number of positions in the set is a function of a ratio between a number of chroma samples in the picture and a number of luma samples in the picture.
LIM discloses wherein the number of positions in the set is a function of a ratio between a number of chroma samples in the picture and a number of luma samples in the picture (the number of positions that may be set include the shape of the feature block wherein the features include chroma and luma and are represented by variable M and N and includes the ratio of M/N to determine the positions; column 48, lines 10-50; column 49, lines 40-53; column 50, lines 4-51).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NA to have the number of positions in the set is a function of a ratio between a number of chroma samples in the picture and a number of luma samples in the picture of LIM reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the ability to use the transform mode information which is entropy encoded/decoding selectively depending on the block size which is determined using the ratio of M/N feature blocks wherein M and N represent chroman and luma blocks respectively as suggested by column48, lines 44-50 of LIM. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine LIM with NA to obtain the invention as specified in claim 37.
Claims 26, and 36 are rejected under 35 § U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 12,160,592 B2 to NA et al. (hereinafter “NA”) in view of US 9,813,723 B2 to CHEN et al. (hereinafter “CHEN”).
As per claim 26, NA discloses the method of claim 25. NA fails to disclose wherein the single position is a default position.
CHEN discloses wherein the single position is a default position (the positions used to start the encoding/decoding process of the reconstructed pixels which have been classified is done in a standard/default format/settings of the computing system; column 9, lines 20-56; column 13, lines 11-47; column 19, lines 24-52).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NA to have wherein the single position is a default position of CHEN reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide “default” settings so the system is ready to use and does not require further setup steps as suggested by CHEN column 19, lines 24-52. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine CHEN with NA to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26.
As per claim 36, NA discloses the device of claim 35. NA fails to disclose wherein the single position is a default position.
CHEN discloses wherein the single position is a default position (the positions used to start the encoding/decoding process of the reconstructed pixels which have been classified is done in a standard/default format/settings of the computing system; column 9, lines 20-56; column 13, lines 11-47; column 19, lines 24-52).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify NA to have the single position is a default position of CHEN reference. The Suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide “default” settings so the system is ready to use and does not require further setup steps as suggested by CHEN column 19, lines 24-52. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine CHEN with NA to obtain the invention as specified in claim 36.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN JACOB DHOOGE whose telephone number is (571) 270-0999. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571) 270-5183. 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.
/D J DHOOGE/Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights