DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20250008108) in view of Heo et al (US 20250240437).
As to claim 1, Li discloses a method of decoding video data performed by an electronic device (FIG. 1 and FIG. 12), the method comprising:
receiving the video data (FIG. 3A, video bitstream 228);
determining a block unit from a current frame included in the video data (see [0147], current block; see [0081], current picture);
determining a first chroma prediction block of the block unit based on a luma vector of the block unit (FIG. 12 and [0147], predC; see [0068] and [0081], motion vector of the current block);
determining a second chroma prediction block of the block unit using a cross-component filter based on a reconstructed luma block of the block unit (FIG. 12, predC’; see [0147]-[0148]);
determining, from the video data, (see [0147]); and
reconstructing the block unit based on the first chroma prediction block, the second chroma prediction block, and the plurality of weighting parameters (FIG. 12, predC”; see [0147]).
Li fails to explicitly disclose determining, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting the plurality of weighting parameters.
However, Heo teaches determining, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting the plurality of weighting parameters (see [0078] and [0185]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify Li using Heo’s teachings to determine, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting the plurality of weighting parameters in order to improve coding efficiency (Heo; [0004]).
As to claim 2, the combination of Li and Heo further discloses further comprising:
weightedly combining the first chroma prediction block and the second chroma prediction block based on the plurality of weighting parameters to generate a predicted chroma block, wherein reconstructing the block unit is further based on the predicted chroma block (Li; see [0147]).
As to claim 3, the combination of Li and Heo further discloses wherein determining the first chroma prediction block of the block unit based on the luma vector of the block unit comprises:
determining a reference block that is indicated by the luma vector of the block unit (Li; see [0068], [0081]), and
determining a chroma reconstruction block of the reference block as the first chroma prediction block of the block unit (Li; see [0189], original predicted chroma predC).
As to claim 4, the combination of Li and Heo further discloses wherein determining the second chroma prediction block of the block unit using the cross-component filter comprises:
determining a luma reconstruction block of the reference block as a luma prediction block of the block unit (Li; see [0147], predL), and
deriving the cross-component filter based on the luma prediction block and the first chroma prediction block of the block unit for determining the second chroma prediction block of the block unit (Li; see [0147]).
As to claim 9, Li discloses an electronic device for decoding video data (FIG. 1), the electronic device comprising:
at least one processor (see [0253]); and
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the at least one processor and storing one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to (see [0253]):
receive the video data (FIG. 3A, video bitstream 228);
determine a block unit from a current frame included in the video data (see [0147], current block; see [0081], current picture);
determine a first chroma prediction block of the block unit based on a luma vector of the block unit (FIG. 12 and [0147], predC; see [0068] and [0081], motion vector of the current block);
determine a second chroma prediction block of the block unit using a cross-component filter based on a reconstructed luma block of the block unit (FIG. 12, predC’; see [0147]-[0148]);
determine, from the video data, (see [0147]); and
reconstruct the block unit based on the first chroma prediction block, the second chroma prediction block, and the plurality of weighting parameters (FIG. 12, predC”; see [0147]).
Li fails to explicitly disclose determine, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting the plurality of weighting parameters.
However, Heo teaches determine, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting the plurality of weighting parameters (see [0078] and [0185]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify Li using Heo’s teachings to determine, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting the plurality of weighting parameters in order to improve coding efficiency (Heo; [0004]).
As to claims 10-12, claims 10-12 recite the same features as those recited in claims 2-4, respectively, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 20250008108) in view of Heo et al (US 20250240437) in view of Chen et al (US 20240357097).
As to claim 5, the combination of Li and Heo fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the current frame is an inter-frame, the reference block is included in the current frame, and the luma vector of the block unit comprises a luma block vector having a direction from the block unit to the reference block in the current frame.
However, Chen teaches wherein: the current frame is an inter-frame, the reference block is included in the current frame, and the luma vector of the block unit comprises a luma block vector having a direction from the block unit to the reference block in the current frame (FIG. 5; see [0103]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Li and Heo using Chen’s teachings to include wherein: the current frame is an inter-frame, the reference block is included in the current frame, and the luma vector of the block unit comprises a luma block vector having a direction from the block unit to the reference block in the current frame in order to enhance coding efficiency (Chen; [0025]).
As to claim 6, the combination of Li, Heo and Chen further discloses wherein: the luma block vector is determined based on one of a luma intra block copy (IBC) vector and an intra template matching prediction (IntraTMP) mode (Li; see [0147], intra block copy (IBC); Chen; [0097]-[0098]).
As to claim 7, the combination of Li and Heo fails to explicitly disclose wherein: the current frame is an inter-frame, the reference block is included in a reference frame, different from the current frame, and the luma vector of the block unit comprises a luma motion vector having a direction from a co-located block of the block unit to the reference block in the reference frame.
However, Chen teaches wherein: the current frame is an inter-frame, the reference block is included in a reference frame, different from the current frame, and the luma vector of the block unit comprises a luma motion vector having a direction from a co-located block of the block unit to the reference block in the reference frame (FIG. 5; see [0025]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Li and Heo using Chen’s teachings to include wherein: the current frame is an inter-frame, the reference block is included in a reference frame, different from the current frame, and the luma vector of the block unit comprises a luma motion vector having a direction from a co-located block of the block unit to the reference block in the reference frame in order to enhance coding efficiency (Chen; [0025]).
As to claim 8, the combination of Li and Heo fails to explicitly disclose further comprising:
selecting one of a plurality of inter cross-component prediction (CCP) merge candidates for the block unit; and
determining the cross-component filter from the selected one of the plurality of inter CCP merge candidates.
However, Chen teaches selecting one of a plurality of inter cross-component prediction (CCP) merge candidates for the block unit (see [0097]-[0098]); and
determining the cross-component filter from the selected one of the plurality of inter CCP merge candidates (FIG. 7 and [0100], CCRM filter 702).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Li and Heo using Chen’s teachings to include selecting one of a plurality of inter cross-component prediction (CCP) merge candidates for the block unit; and determining the cross-component filter from the selected one of the plurality of inter CCP merge candidates in order to enhance coding efficiency (Chen; [0025]).
As to claims 13-16, claims 13-16 recite the same features as those recited in claims 5-8, respectively, and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, at pages 8-9, “Regarding the weighting parameters, paragraphs [0068]-[0070], and [0081] of Li … Based on the above discussed facts, Li fails to disclose, teach, or suggest "determining, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting, from a plurality of predefined parameters, a plurality of weighting parameters of the first chroma prediction block and the second chroma prediction block based on the weighting index,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant completely ignored paragraph [0147] cited by the examiner and is relying his arguments on paragraphs [0068]-[0070] and [0081] which were not relied on by the examiner for the argued limitation. The examiner clearly cited paragraph [0147] describing the decoding process of FIG. 12 of Li, which discloses weighting parameters such as W0, W1 used to determined predC”.
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "the weighting parameters," as recited in unamended claim 1, are selected, during the decoding process, from a plurality of predefined parameters based on the weighting index.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 merely recites “determining, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting…”. Only the determination step of the weighting index and its intended used were recited. No selection based on the weighting index is recited.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, at page 10, that Heo does not "determining, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting, from a plurality of predefined parameters," the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, as explained above, the step of using the weighting index to select weighting parameters was not claimed. Second, Heo discloses in [0078] and [0185], as admitted by Applicant, the weights are determined [selected] by weight information [index] from the bitstream. Therefore, Heo teaches "determining, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting a plurality of weighting parameters."
Therefore, the combination of Li and Leo discloses “determining, from the video data, a weighting index for selecting, from a plurality of predefined parameters, a plurality of weighting parameters of the first chroma prediction block and the second chroma prediction block based on the weighting index.”
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOUBACAR ABDOU TCHOUSSOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 5712727331. 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.
/BOUBACAR ABDOU TCHOUSSOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482