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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Examiner agrees the double patenting issue can be held in abeyance until the instant application is deemed otherwise allowable. Remarks, 9. The rejection and rationale are maintained, infra, for posterity.
On pages 9–10 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the amendment to the independent claims overcomes the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b). While Examiner agrees strides have been made towards rectifying several issues raised in the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, Examiner finds more is required. While the amendments add some clarity and also represent a narrowing of subject matter, the amendments do not particularly address the full rationale for the rejection. The claimed subject matter still represents very broad claim scope that has not been demonstrated to be supported by the Specification and still resorts to abstract terms with unclear meaning that the skilled artisan would find purposefully obfuscating. With respect to claim 1, Examiner appreciates Applicant’s attempt to clarify when Applicant clarifies the weighting factor is determined according to luma information of the reference sample and a current sample. However, the term “according to” has no recognizable meaning within the context of the recited feature. Furthermore, dependent claims 6 and 8 explain that the weighting factor is based on a mapping function that accounts for a chroma difference (ΔC) such that claim 1’s contrary reference to the weighting factor being calculated with respect to perhaps a luma difference is contradictory. As another example, for claim 8, what is a “function value…corresponding to the first-reference-colour-component parameter according to a mapping function f()?” and how does claim 8’s explanation of how the weighting factor is determined jive at all with claim 1’s recitation that it is based on luma information? There is no mention of any luma information anywhere in claim 8. Again, it is manifestly obvious Applicant is using terminology that is too broad, too obtuse to put the skilled artisan on notice with reasonable certainty as to what the invention is. Thus, it is too broad given the scant disclosure enabling such broad, obfuscating terminology. Claim 6 recites “using a first mapping” that is a mapping LUT between some undefined parameter and a value of a weighting factor. Applicant has not affirmatively identified what the parameter is such that an enabling description can be identified. Also, again assuming a mapping is described in Applicant’s Specification, a description of one example of a mapping is unlikely to enable the claim’s more broadly recited terms covering any parameter related to a first-reference-colour-component. Examiner recommends eliminating from the claims any recited abstractions in favor of concrete features having unambiguous meaning within the level of skill in this art. Finally, when applying a claim interpretation to the claims, and after some effort, Examiner found the claims to be drawn to a video coding tool called cross-component linear model (CCLM), which also goes by similar names such as cross-component prediction (CCP), etc. See claim rejections, infra.
On pages 10–14 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the teachings of Huo-1 and Huo-2 are deficient for failing to teach or suggest Applicant’s recited features in claim 1. First, Applicant does not argue that which is claimed. Applicant asserts “claim 1 specifies that the weighted values themselves directly constitute the prediction value” and, while admitting that Huo-1 at least indirectly uses the weighted sums to form predictions, argues that, “Criticially, the weighted sums in Huo-1 are used only to derive model parameters, not to form the prediction value directly.” The claim merely recites “determining a weighted value for a reference sample…” and “determining the prediction value…based on a sum of N weighted values.” Applicant’s arguments against Huo-1 and Huo-2 are unclear. For example, Applicant contends that Huo-1’s teachings are deficient. Applicant’s weighting factor applied to a first color component of a reference sample is, by definition, a linear relationship between the to-be-predicted (i.e. current) sample and the reference sample. Identically, Huo-1’s scaling factor applied to a reference sample to predict a current sample represents a linear relationship between the to-be-predicted (i.e. current) sample and the reference sample. Similar teachings are presented in Huo-2. Specifically, Huo-2 teaches determining a weighting factor based on similarity between the reference sample and current sample for CCLM, which the rejection noted was identical to the subject matter described in Applicant’s Specification. Applicant’s argument does not squarely address this finding nor directly address the claim language as presented. Therefore, because there is no apparent difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, Examiner is unpersuaded of error. Second, Examiner finds it difficult to determine precisely what distinctions there may be between the claimed subject matter and the prior art when clarity is still an issue with respect to the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Therefore, for the time being, given the lack of clarity under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness given the overlapping subject matter drawn to cross-component prediction (CCP or CCLM).
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 14.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–30 of U.S. Patent No. 11,218,701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter as it pertains to determining first color component prediction using the claimed parameters, scaling factors, weights, and neighboring samples for CCLM prediction.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,743,466 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter as it pertains to determining first color component prediction using the claimed parameters, scaling factors, weights, and neighboring samples for CCLM prediction.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–26 of U.S. Patent No. 11,503,312 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims represent substantially overlapping subject matter as it pertains to determining first color component prediction using the claimed parameters, scaling factors, weights, and neighboring samples for CCLM prediction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3–6, and 8–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, the claims are unreasonably broad and obfuscating such that one cannot even match with reasonable clarity what is being claimed and what is being described in the Specification. Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations. In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737. The Wands factors include: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary, (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented, (3) the presence or absence of working examples, (4) the nature of the invention, (5) the state of the prior art, (6) the relative skill of those in the art, (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, and (8) the breadth of the claims. In reviewing for lack of enablement, the Wands court elected to consider “all of the factors.” Id. at 740. However, it is not necessary to review all the Wands factors to find a disclosure enabling. Rather, the Wands factors “are illustrative, not mandatory” and what is relevant to an enablement determination depends upon the facts of the particular case. See Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1213 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See also Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999) and Warner-Lambert Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In this case, Applicant has extremely broadly claimed results rather than how the results are achieved, has omitted critical steps, and has used such broad, amorphous terms that one cannot know using plain and ordinary meaning how to decode the amorphous terms using Applicant’s Specification. For example, when drilling down on the claim set to figure out what particular embodiment may be being claimed, one can follow the claim tree from claim 1, to claim 6, to claim 8, to claim 9, to one of claims 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, or 17. Following the claim tree down to claim 10, one is no closer to understanding anything about the invention. For example, claim 10 obtusely recites, “determining a value corresponding to the array element value according to the mapping function f().” Oddly, claim 9, the claim upon which claim 10 depends, is supposed to be describing the mapping function and its relationship determining a value corresponding to a parameter according to claim 9’s preamble and states such is accomplished by determining a factor. Oddly still, claim 8, the claim upon which claim 9 depends, purports to explain determining a weighting factor by setting the weighting factor to be equal to a value requiring the function value of the first mapping function (as described in a dependent claim!? (claim 10?)). Going further up the claim chain, claim 6 says the weighting factor determination requires a mapping table, which the skilled artisan would interpret as essentially invoking a mapping function (see Ikonin cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action). And claim 1 has no reference to a mapping function and appears to instead apply a weighting factor multiplying a component value by the weighting factor. See also explanation under the Response to Arguments, supra, explaining claim 6’s and claim 8’s explanation of how to calculate the weighting factor confusingly omits any mention of luma information as contrarily alluded to in claim 1. All of this is to say that Applicant’s claims are too obtuse to make any sense to one skilled in the art, utilize terms that are not art-recognizable, and claim results rather than how results are achieved such that the claims broadly cover all ways of achieving the stated objectives, both known and unknown, which cannot possibly be enabled. MPEP 2163 explains a claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 2. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01. The claims must be commensurate in scope with that enabled by the specification. Sitrick v. Dreamworks, LLC, 516 F.3d 993, 999, 85 USPQ2d 1826, ____ (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“The scope of the claims must be less than or equal to the scope of the enablement to ensure that the public knowledge is enriched by the patent specification to a degree at least commensurate with the scope of the claims.”) (quotation omitted). MPEP 2161.01(III). It is noted such broadly claimed features also run afoul of the written description requirement. “[T]he description of one method for creating a seamless DWT does not entitle the inventor . . . to claim any and all means for achieving that objective.” LizardTech, 424 F.3d at 1346, 76 USPQ2d at 1733. See MPEP 2161.01. Applicant’s use of abstractions in Applicant’s claims where Applicant’s Specification, at best, may only describe a single way of achieving the claimed results is not enabled. Furthermore, given the claim scope and the lack of clear description to support such broadly claimed features, Examiner finds the skilled artisan would have to resort to undue experimentation to capture the full scope of the claimed invention and that the policy articulated in MPEP 2162 is not met by Applicant’s filing. Examiner finds Applicant must amend the claims to represent concrete subject matter having definable scope rather than resort to abstractions, include all critical elements, and constrain the subject matter to only represent the scope Applicant can support by reference to Applicant’s disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3–6, and 8–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. MPEP 2163 explains a claim which omits matter disclosed to be essential to the invention as described in the specification or in other statements of record may be subject to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, as not enabling, or under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 2. See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976); In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976); and In re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 2172.01. Applicant uses such amorphous, obfuscating language to claim the invention that it cannot be reasonably deciphered what Applicant has claimed to have invented. Because the skilled artisan cannot be reasonably certain of the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter, Applicant’s claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See corresponding rationale under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), which explains why the claimed features are confusing to one skilled in the art. As a particular non-limiting example, while claim 1 helpfully appears to explain the weighting factor is based on a luma information, the further clarification ostensibly offered in dependent claims 6 and 8 actually appears contradictory, failing to mention luma information at all and instead apparently referencing a mapping function f() involving a chroma difference (ΔC).
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, 3–5, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo (US 2021/0160505 A1) (herein “Huo-1”) and Huo (US 2021/0160515 A1) (herein “Huo-2”).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Huo-1 and Huo-2 teaches or suggests a decoding method based on cross-component prediction, comprising: determining at least one reference sample in a neighbouring area for a current block (Huo-2, ¶ 0080 and Claim 1: teaches determining a reference sample for CCLM); determining a weighting factor according to luma information of the at least one reference sample and luma information of a sample to-be-predicted in the current block (As Applicant’s published paragraph [0082] explains, the weighting factor is determined based on similarity between neighboring sample and current sample; Likewise, Huo-2, ¶¶ 0080–0083: teaches determining a weighting factor based on similarity between the reference sample and current sample for CCLM, wherein L(m) or L(k) is the luma component); and determining a prediction value of a first colour component of the sample to-be-predicted in the current block by weighting a first colour component value of the at least one reference sample according to the weighting factor (Huo-2, ¶ 0080: teaches predicting a sample to-be-predicted in the current block by weighting a neighboring reference sample as the first color component value to improve accuracy; Huo-1, ¶ 0010 and 0013: teach using the weight coefficient to better align the linear model and obtaining said weight coefficient using a preset weight model); wherein the at least one reference sample comprises N reference samples, and determining the prediction value of the first colour component of the sample to-be-predicted in the current block by weighting the first colour component value of the reference sample according to the weighting factor comprises: determining a weighted value for a reference sample in N reference samples, wherein the weighted value for the reference sample is obtained by multiplying the first colour component value of the reference sample by a weighting factor corresponding to the reference sample, and obtaining N weighted values, wherein N is a positive integer greater than 2 (Huo-1, Equations 6–8: demonstrate the weight (w) is multiplied by the first color component value of the reference sample obtaining N weighted values; see also e.g. Huo-2, Equation 9 and/or 11: teaching the predicted chroma value is determined by weighting the corresponding luma sample by a weight alpha and also teaching the weight, alpha, is itself obtained by multiplying a number of weighting factors by a number of samples); and determining the prediction value of the first colour component of the sample to-be-predicted in the current block based on a sum of N weighted values (Huo-2, Equation 9 or 10: teaches the sum of N weighted values being used to derive the linear model parameters for CCLM).
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 Huo-1, with those of Huo-2, because they are both drawn to the same field of endeavor, because utilizing a weight coefficient allows for a more accurate model (Huo-1, ¶ 0013; Huo-2, ¶ 0080), and because such a 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 Huo-1 and Huo-2 used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Huo-1 and Huo-2 teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein determining the at least one reference sample in the neighbouring area for the current block comprises: determining the at least one reference sample from samples in the neighbouring area of the current block, wherein the neighbouring area comprises at least one of: a top neighbouring area, a top-right neighbouring area, a left neighbouring area, or a bottom-left neighbouring area (Huo-1, Claim 8: teaches these neighboring locations for possible reference samples).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Huo-1 and Huo-2 teaches or suggests the method of claim 3, further comprising: determining the at least one reference sample by selecting from the samples in the neighbouring area (Huo-2: teaches reference samples come from the neighboring area).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Huo-1 and Huo-2 teaches or suggests the method of claim 4, wherein determining the at least one reference sample by selecting from the samples in the neighbouring area comprises: determining the at least one reference sample from the samples in the neighbouring area according to a location and/or a colour component intensity of the samples in the neighbouring area (Huo-1, Claim 2: teaches a position correlation between the current block and the neighboring reference sample).
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to the corresponding encoding method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to a device rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claims 6 and 8–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov (US 2022/0124343 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein determining the weighting factor according to the luma information of the at least one reference sample and the luma information of the sample to-be-predicted in the current block comprises: determining a first-reference-colour-component parameter according to a difference between a first-reference-colour-component value of the sample to-be-predicted in the current block and first-reference-colour-component value of the at least one reference sample; and determining the weighting factor according to the first-reference-colour-component parameter by using a first mapping, the first mapping being a mapping look-up table between the first-reference-colour-component parameter and a value of the weighting factor (Huo-1, ¶ 0010, 0013, and 0056: teaches a weight coefficient corresponding to the neighboring reference sample obtained by a preset weight calculation model; Filippov, ¶¶ 0032–0033: teaches a LUT for fetching multipliers wherein it is well-known in the art to use LUT multiplication and shifts).
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 Huo-1 and Huo-2, with those of Filippov, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor, because calculating mean value of reference samples using a LUT is obvious for linear model prediction as evidenced by Filippov’s teachings, and because such a 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 Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 6, wherein determining the weighting factor according to the first-reference-colour-component parameter by using the preset first mapping comprises: determining a value corresponding to the first-reference-colour-component parameter in a preset function relationship of the first mapping; and setting the weighting factor to be equal to the value (Huo-1, ¶ 0010, 0013, and 0056: teaches a weight coefficient corresponding to the neighboring reference sample obtained by a preset weight calculation model).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 8, wherein determining the function value f(|ΔC_k|) corresponding to the first-reference-colour-component parameter according to the mapping function f() comprises: determining a first factor; determining a first product value according to the first factor and the first-reference-colour-component parameter; and determining a value corresponding to the first product value according to the mapping function f() (Huo-1, ¶ 0010, 0013, and 0056: teaches a weight coefficient corresponding to the neighboring reference sample obtained by a preset weight calculation model; Filippov, ¶¶ 0032–0033: teaches a LUT for fetching multipliers wherein it is well-known in the art to use LUT multiplication and shifts).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, further comprising: determining an array element value according to a preset mapping look-up table between the first-reference-colour-component parameter, the first factor, and an array element; and determining a value corresponding to the array element value according to the mapping function f() (Filippov, ¶ 0069: teaches the alpha parameter is derived using a LUT; see also Filippov, ¶ 0355: teaching the alpha parameter division operation being achieved by a LUT and right shift specifying precision wherein the LUT is an array having an index v1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein one of: the first factor being a preset constant value; or determining the first factor comprises: determining a value of the first factor according to a size parameter of the current block and a preset mapping look-up table between the size parameter of the current block and the value of the first factor, wherein the size parameter of the current block comprises at least one of: a width of the current block or a height of the current block (Filippov, ¶ 0062 and Fig. 13: teaches utilizing a weighting coefficient applied to the mean value of the reference samples depending on width and height of the block to be predicted).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein determining the first factor comprises: determining a value of the first factor according to the number of reference samples for the current block, wherein the number of the at least one reference samples for the current block is N (Filippov, ¶ 0031: teaches the multiplication and shift operation is dependent on the number of available reconstructed neighboring samples of the current block).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 12, further comprising: determining the value of the first factor according to a preset mapping look-up table between the number of the at least one reference samples for the current block and the value of the first factor (Filippov, ¶¶ 0031–0032: teaches the multiplication and shift operation is dependent on the number of available reconstructed neighboring samples of the current block).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein determining the first product value according to the first factor and the first-reference-colour-component parameter comprises: setting the first product value to be equal to a product of the first factor and the first-reference-colour-component parameter (Huo-1, Abstract, ¶ 0032, and ¶ 0037: teaches the parameters as scaling factors of a linear model for minimizing regression error; see also Huo-1, ¶ 0040).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein determining the first product value according to the first factor and the first-reference-colour-component parameter comprises: setting the first product value to be equal to a numerical value obtained by right-shifting the first-reference-colour-component parameter, wherein the number of bits right shifted is equal to the first factor (Filippov, ¶ 0115: teaches the alpha parameter being right shifted by a shift factor; see also ¶ 0355: teaching the alpha parameter division operation being achieved by a LUT and right shift specifying precision).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein determining the first product value according to the first factor and the first-reference-colour-component parameter comprises: determining the first product value by performing addition and bit shift on the first-reference-colour-component parameter according to the first factor (Filippov, ¶ 0036: teaches mean value calculations not requiring multiplications and divisions and instead being implemented using addition and shift operations).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 9, wherein determining the first product value according to the first factor and the first-reference-colour-component parameter comprises: determining a second factor according to the first colour component value of the at least one reference sample and a first-reference-colour-component value of the at least one reference sample; and setting the first product value to a product of the first factor, the first-reference-colour-component parameter, and the second factor (Huo-1, ¶ 0040: teaches first and second scaling factors for first color component, correlations, and similarities).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Huo-1, Huo-2, and Filippov teaches or suggests the method of claim 17, wherein determining the second factor according to the first colour component value of the at least one reference sample and the first-reference-colour-component value of the at least one reference sample comprises: determining the second factor by performing least squares calculation on the first colour component value of the at least one reference sample and the first-reference-colour-component value of the at least one reference sample (Filippov, ¶ 0005: teaches the conventional approach to CCLM is calculating least mean squares).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Laroche (US 2020/0288135 A1) teaches certain neighboring reference sample groups (e.g. Fig. 10) and least squares method for CCLM parameters wherein the number of samples corresponds to the size of the block considered (e.g. ¶¶ 0147–0148).
Zhang (US 2020/0396453 A1) teaches aspects of CCLM.
Laroche (US 2020/0389650 A1) teaches aspects of CCLM.
Ikonin (US 2022/0103822 A1) teaches “a lookup table can also be considered as representing a mapping function.” (¶ 0013).
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
Prosecution Insights