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 Status
This Office Action responds to application 18/875380 filed on 12/16/24. Claims 12-21 are pending.
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 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)(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.
1. Claims 12 - 15 and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being anticipated by Wang et al., US 2022/0360799 A1 (hereinafter Wang).
As for claim 12, Wang discloses an apparatus comprising at least one processor ([0029], e.g., processors), memory ([0029], e.g., computer-readable medium) including computer program code, the memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following: receiving a set of input samples ([0131], e.g., data points); determining a set of reference samples from the set of input samples with two types of color information ([0131], e.g., luma and chroma); determining center representatives ([0132], e.g., luma threshold and [0138], e.g., chroma threshold) of both of said two types of color information; determining a lower representative ([0142], e.g., alpha_1 and/or beta_1) and a higher representative ([0142], e.g., alpha_2 and/or beta_2) of at least one of the two types of color information based on the set of reference samples and the determined center representative; determining a first cross-component model ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), top line equation) based on the determined lower and the center representatives; determining a second cross-component model ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), bottom line equation) based on the determined higher and the center representatives; and applying the first cross-component model ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), top line equation) to an input sample when it is determined that a value of the input sample is smaller than or equal to ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), top line “if”) at least one of the determined center representatives, otherwise ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), bottom line “if”) applying the second cross-component model ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), bottom line equation) to the input sample.
As for claim 13, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12. In addition, Wang further discloses the apparatus upon execution caused performing calculating an average or a median for both of said two types of color information to act as the center representatives ([0135], e.g., mean luma value, the median value).
As for claim 14, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12. In addition, Wang further discloses a cross-component model is defined by an output of a function applied to an input value ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1)).
As for claim 15, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 14. In addition, Wang further discloses the function comprises a linear mapping from the input value to an output value ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1)); or two distinct functions activated according to the determined center representative.
As for claim 17, the claim recites a method of the apparatus of claim 12, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 18, the claim recites a method of the apparatus of claim 13, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 19, the claim recites a method of the apparatus of claim 14, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 20, the claim recites a method of the apparatus of claim 15, and is similarly analyzed.
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.
2. Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Choi et al., US 2020/0195930 A1 (hereinafter Choi).
As for claim 16, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 12.
Wang does not explicitly disclose, but Choi teaches determining a second set of average values ([0093], e.g., average values, note when applied to the group having smaller values) for the set of reference samples comprising a first type of value smaller than or equal to the determined corresponding average value; determining a third set average values ([0093], e.g., average values, note when applied to the group having lager values) for the reference samples comprising the first type of value larger than the determined corresponding value.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the references of Wang and Choi before him/her to modify the video coding using musti-model linear model of Wang with the teaching of CCLM-based intra-prodiction method and device of Choi with a motivation to obtain a more accurate representation of the data set for more accurate image and more efficient bitstream and/or bitstream processing by using the average of the values.
In addition, Wang further discloses the apparatus upon execution caused to perform determining the set of reference samples comprising at least two types of values ([0131], e.g., luma and chroma); determining a first set of average values ([0150], e.g., average) for both said at least two types of values of the set of reference samples; determining the first cross-component model ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), top line equation) using the determined first and second set of average values; determining a second cross-component ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), bottom line equation) using the determined first and third set of average values; and determining a predicted value for a sample of one type using at least a sample of another type as input using the first cross-component model ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), top line equation) when ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), top line “if”) said sample of another type is smaller or equal than corresponding average of the first set of average values or using the second cross-component model ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), bottom line equation) when ([0112], e.g., (Equation 1), bottom line “if”) said sample of another type is larger than the corresponding average of the first set of average values.
As for claim 21, the claim recites a method of the apparatus of claim 16, and is similarly analyzed.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2003/0108099 discloses picture encoding method and apparatus, picture decoding method and apparatus and furnishing medium.
2. US 2005/0053294 discloses techniques and tools for progressive and interlaced video coding and decoding.
3. US 2006/0126962 discloses methods and systems for reducing blocking artifacts with reduced complexity for spatially-scalable video coding.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/JOSEPH SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485